Republic v Elias (Confirmation Case 260 of 2021) [2021] MWHCCrim 11 (28 July 2021)
The sentence imposed by the lower court is adequate as the fine is far above the value of the specimen found in possession by the convict.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] MWHCCrim 11
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Republic; Convict: Chakwamba Elias
- Court
- High Court of Malawi Criminal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Malawi
- Case Number
- Confirmation Case 260 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Confirmation of Sentence
- Outcome
- sentence confirmed
- Legal Topics
- Possession of Endangered Species, Sentencing, Confirmation of Sentence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Prosecutor
Chakwamba Elias
Convict
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Confirmation of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was adequate for possession of specimen of endangered species without permit
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence imposed by the lower court is adequate as the fine is far above the value of the specimen found in possession by the convict.
Court Disposition
sentence confirmed
Orders
- The sentence of a fine of K250,000.00 and in default 36 months imprisonment with hard labour is confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CRIMINAL DIVISION CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 260 OF 2021 (Being Criminal Case No 192 of 2020 in the First Grade Magistrate Court sitting at Nsanje) THE REPUBLIC -V- CHAKWAMBA ELIAS CORAM: HON. JUSTICE AGNES PATEMBA Ms. L. Kulesi, Counsel for the State Mr. Panyanja, Counsel for the Convict Mrs. Chiusiwa, Court Reporter Mr Amos, Official Interpreter ORDER ON CONFIRMATION 1, The Convict Chakwamba Elias aged 26, from Mpomba village, Traditional Authority Chimomba in Nsanje district was convicted in the First Grade Magistrate Court of the offence of possession of specimen od endangered species without permit contrary to section 86 (1) as read with section 110A (b) of the National Parks and Wildlife. Act part 11B (2) of National Parks and Wildlife (Protected, Endangered and Listed Species (Declaration) Order, 2017, 2. Upon review, the reviewing judge was of the considered view that the sentence imposed by the lower court was on a lower side and ordered that the matter be set down to consider enhancement of the sentence. 3. At the hearing, both the State and the Defence submitted that the sentence should be confirmed considering that the value of the endangered species which was in his possession was K7, 800.00 and the Convict was a charged a fine of K250,000.00 in default 36 months IHL. The Convict is the first offender and prayed that the court should be lenient with the Convict. 4, The Court indeed agreed with both parties to confirm the sentence, The Court did not find any reasonable ground to tamper with the sentence imposed by the lower court. Consideration was given to the value of the specimen that was found in possession by the convict. The law provides that any fine imposed on the convict shall not be less than the value of the specimen involved in the commission of the offence. The fine of K250, 000.00 that was imposed is far above the value of the specimen that was found in possession by the Convict. 5. In our considered view, the sentence imposed by a lower court is adequate. I therefore confirm the sentence of a fine of K250, 000.00 and in default 36 months IHL. 6. So lorder. Delivered this 28th Day of July 2021. AGNES PATEMBA, Xe JUDGE