Mohamed and Another v Rex (Cr. Apps. 35 and 36 of .1930 (Msa.).)
Mohamed and Another v Rex (Cr. Apps. 35 and 36 of .1930 (Msa.).) [1930] EACA 158 (1 January 1930)
The court held that the Game Ordinance, when read as a whole, demonstrates a clear legislative intention to treat each contravention in respect of every animal as a separate offence. Section 44(1) expressly provides for penalties in respect of each additional animal, and the absence of a specific penalty for subsequent animals in section 11 does not preclude the imposition of further penalties under section 44(1). The court rejected the argument that the offence constituted a single act and affirmed that the Magistrate was justified in imposing a fine for the first trophy under section 11 and…
Source excerpt
- Wildlife Offences
- Sentencing Principles
- Statutory Interpretation
- Forfeiture Of Trophies