19761029 TZHC Tabora

, . .r, H •. . . : ' . .. . -. .•: • :. .. , • . - . ->, .... : • i• I IN T.HE UGH . iU r 4,j •. AT TBON ..v' • APPELiTE JURIth:Icr:icN , . tIXI. Z• - - . 0 . •.•.. . . tTbqrp . y) .. .. •:. . Aj (Hc) CRI4ItJ1J J.97 APPThNO. 66 (c/F Cr. Apps. 14:n148:/;1 '2 1 T )•fffY:: i•r(•+ 9Gt1 PF 1975 o 'rrr, ITRCICQVR F111 lAp TRIT r B)IDI f.., c .. T Befoie Rwejuna,Esq'-, District Yagistrate. (C I i i[Ljfl .J - t I ruSj.t MADIJHV . . . ........ . - a . .. . • . • •r. . .'.. hi. .. . . AP,kELI,.1ANT Accused) t IF I ; vSersu- . . . TH1 REPUBLIC ........ . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . .. . ... RESPONDENT (Orig. Prosecutor) -t.- ,i . .... - ••.. .. . 1 ..-, .. - j i.. . t:• • . ('. . .• -.- . . . CHARGE'.I 1st Ct. Ki11ingGazxQ An ....... 1witiidt Game Licertce'ó/s- 10(1) (2) (a) Act No. 12/14. 2d Ct. 4Jn1a*ftlpos.z.êssionI.of Govt. .T'op5c/S.67...'(l) (2) ofrjc No. 112/74. - 'J3DGMENT- I The three appellants ths MADUHIJ, MU0LI çCPSTNTINEkd A 4 INI1 LiND1ENI, cte èiarged with triet onwo ceu under he Wildlife Co -rvtr-@nu1tt, 197k. Thk first cou charged them w.th hunting ih me reserve with'it perinisson contrary o Setioi 10 (1) () (a1Y and te Secoid coun± chr 1-ther qith uri1awfu'i posse-salon, of ''overnrrent trophy contr.ry to section 67 (a) (2) (c) (iii). They were acquitted on the first count but --c:onvjctèd of the second count. Each oneif e'was sentenced to three years imprisonment. They are a . pea1ing from that decision. The second anO third app1ats were at the mEiterial time rangers with the Serengeti .Natioñal PaiIard the first appellant was a driver with rthe :s/.re .It was cominor ground that on 3/7/75. 4n.tç ev ng,. the appellants were fouhd in possession of four.-Za 4arcsses. The cgas•sea were .fo'und chopped up into pieces ad tneir skins peeled off and away. Besides the Carcasses, the appo1lants were also 'ound with tTo riflesp fourteen bu11t, seven cartridge shells, an axe 1 a pana knife, The team of Game Officials who enountered them helc up and deained..thei at their camp over night. The ultimately brought to court on the charges. I - Their common defence was tnat t.oy had founo the en5nQred in a w.re device and presumed that that was of poachers They thereforc kiliLd the animals and put $ earcasses ,n tIer vnicic q. They tendered a written au1Lty to the effect that they were permitted to-kill.anirnels, siidfi as - Zebras, if they found them entraped by wires laid downbypoacher - :. ....L /! - That authority was oncined brr superior P1.3 Mmari, the Park aren. But 4h H added that in those circutstances, the ranger is required to tjfl the crnima1, preerv the slin, seize the vrire-i'ap,brng the-14kiyC. wire to their Seror a Office.' lb. this particu1ar cae1 1 tuc ape11ants did not co6p1y w .. . learn tri&1 gitrat;elievcc the account of the pp4nts, rrairy on th cs'thS they hid not even intimated it Id the Game officials athe.tio of their approhension and thet they did not possess the skins and thejic devices which were aiegce to pptu'e ite ls o appellants' a1attàck those finding.. With respect j I am not in a position the learned Magistrate waswron re so, ncrL tf -ie povisions of lhtf* he btiren of proof in a case such as tris. 70 (3) of the Act the burden to prove thr.t the possession of these oarc was - lawful - lay- on theappeilants. They coujil discharge that burden only by evidence sasfying the Court of the probability tht.tbcy kd durid he Zebras T ')eare. - 't'hê 4esi5i'ibcfore the trial court anc before this i hdthcr or not the p.LLants so succocded in proving lawful possessio±i .ar not. persuaded. that, tey stcceeddto do so. In short, my reason are eactly 31 4 y ,tjML.ar11td agistra a nd wi- ch I haV briefly set out herein above., . .. he appei1ant cnew ver tki -èing apprehended (.) o'huhtici g and for p sin 61 Go ñft.trcics. ......the very least, they must be deemed to have no iiusion about th:t. et they would not1discls .toCtie Game offici-ls that they had found the animals r ctured by potichors. Their silence then is quite telling. Broadly, the law of this c'untry:ccepts th t an ace ised is not bound to say anything at te'of his arrest. But it has also long been accepted theta failure to answer an accusation or question when an ans!1ecex3anation J. cou1d,be r .reasonab.lybe e& 6c cd'kg1tf rcride sroae evdc t.4fjfl thiort of an accpsation. 4 i ndut td-1 rtt ofi n expahPtin time ofrrst &xcd11r abif t.T jzwe1thh thcir case bcfor the jirt Likei 1iL failure o 'poduèe the cins ad t' wir ric'es. L ot I hv' s-1iI) tiinkthe' nvti i eund 'ad tht areals.. gaint itere di s .t llçptpre o ie henin1Lrum sntence for te offenc. 'Tcre was < no • ion to call into play the provisions of. socton 7of the hct and, iny case, none has coplaind that fd entexce is uxdeserving. , 'kccordingly, the ppeals fail 3,fl every respect. 4 '.r PronouediCQnrt. .' ir ' V '-3T t'r. Teemat for the }publ.c.Lf i,(,' \'\;\ ).1 .... 11d j f J.ppeLlants abscnt, ' çI$ci .......... . . .! j. Jcq t fIA 2........,.. r ) 1J Tabora, - D.cP. 'APt(IC, 29th qctober, 1976. '- JUDGE. ) 0 i I