Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Lemtongthai v S.

Country/Territory
South Africa
Type of court
National - lower court
Date
Aug 30, 2013
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
South Gauteng High Court
Reference number
Case No A82/2013
Language
English
Subject
Wild species & ecosystems
Abstract
This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The appellant was charged in the Regional Court of Kempton Park with 26 counts for contravening section 80 (1)(i) of Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1994, in that he unlawfully and intentionally made improper use of documents issued as percolumn 1 and 3 of schedule A, in respect of goods to which the Customs and Excise Act relates to the export of rhino horns.The appellant is a Thai citizen, and a director of a Thai company known as Xaysanang Trading Export-Import. The Company deals with rhino horns, lion bones, teeth and claws. He was involved in the shooting of rhinos after legal hunting permits were issued to him for trophies. This was a misrepresentation to the South African Authorities by the appellant. After the permits were thoroughly checked and cleared by the Customs and Nature Conservation, the appellant changed the addresses as they appeared on the CITES (Conservation International Trade in Endangered species of Fauna and Flora) permits, with the result that the rhinos horns ended up in Laos and Thailand. The people reflected onthe permits as professional hunters were in fact prostitutes hired by the appellant to mislead the South African Authorities. It also emerged that the appellant was a member of asyndicate that operates from Thailand and specializes in dealingin rhino horns. The Court had to determine whether the trial court exercised its discretion properly in imposing the sentence of 40 years imprisonment. Although the appellant had legal permits to shoot the rhinos, he intentionally lied to the authorities. The permits were issued to him fraudulently to legitimize his unlawful and criminal activities. The offences were premeditated. The appellant knew that the killing of rhinos fortrading is a serious crime. The sentence must not only serve as warning to the appellant but must also serve as deterrent to all those who intent to embark on illegal activities of dealing in rhino horns. Poachers must know that in the event they are caught, they would be prosecuted, and a proper and fitting sentence would beimposed on them. Having regard to the serious nature of the offences, the personal interest of the appellant and the interest of justice, a just and appropriate sentence, in the circumstances, would be 30 years imprisonment. Judgement: The sentence imposed by the trial court is therefore set aside and substituted with a sentence of 30 years imprisonment. (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC)
Full text
SouthAfrica-03.pdf
Website
www.unodc.org