WILDLEX

For the State’s case, Detective Steyn from the South African Police testified that he had started out an investigation after having seen a truck and trailer with ostriches that was driven by an employee of accused no.1.

The two accused men were charged for contravening section 27(1) read with subsections 1, 27(2), 85, 87 and 89 (A) of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975, as amended further read with subsections 90 and 250 of 51 of 1977.

This was a case of review where the judge questioned whether a proper sentence was imposed for accused 1 for count 1.

The Magistrate Court commenced trial without the accused persons having pleaded to the charges. The Magistrate referred the matter for special review before sentencing of the accused persons. Court found that it had jurisdiction in terms of section 20(1)(c) of the High Court Act 16 of 1990 to review the proceedings of a Magistrate’s Court.

This is an appeal case where the court looked into the procedure taken to try the matter at the lower court. The judges questioned whether the convictions in the trial court were duplicated.

The accused were charged with the unlawful exportation of controlled wildlife products:14 rhino horns on the first count and a leopard skin on the second count, as well as money laundering on count 3.

The facts are that the the appellant owned a safari lodge on a piece of land within a nature reserve. His main tourist attraction was the wildlife on the nature reserve. However poaching on the reserve had led to the reduction in wildlife sightings and therefore lower volumes of business.

The accused pleaded guilty and were convicted for unlawfully hunting 2 rhino’s and being in possession of rhino horns. The court below considered the seriousness of the crime and the number of rhino’s killed per year and the impact that poaching has on the economy and imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment and a N$60 000.00 fine.

The accused entered onto the complainant’s farm in order to hunt an oryx and was charged with the offence of unlawful hunting of huntable game, and trespassing. The accused pleaded guilty to both counts and were accordingly convicted. The question arose whether there was a duplication of convictions when the court convicted on both counts.

The appellant was caught dealing illegally in ivory and charged with contravening section 2(1)(a) of the AG Proclamation 42 of 1980 – the controlled Games Products Proclamation. As a result, he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and 18 months of the sentence was suspended.