R v Eley and Bull País/Territorio Reino Unido Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Jun 22, 1998 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Court of Appeal Idioma Inglés Materia Especies silvestres y ecosistemas Resumen The appellants pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell restricted specimens, rhinoceros horn, contrary to the control of the Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1985. The second appellant was the owner of a quantity of rhinoceros horn which had come into his possession many years previously, before the restrictions on selling rhinoceros horn came into effect. The second appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 1986, and made arrangements for thehorn to be stored. He then decided to sell the horn, and caused the second appellant to make inquiries with a view to selling the horn. A person who was approached informed the RSPCA, andinspectors posing as potential buyers entered into negotiations with the appellant and others involved. The two RSPCA inspectors were replaced by two undercover police officers, and arrangements were made for the money to be paid. Eventually the first appellant was arrested. Sentenced to nine months'imprisonment and 15 months' imprisonment respectively, with an order depriving the second appellant of his rights in the rhinoceros horn and an order for the payment of prosecution costs by thesecond appellant. The current appeal case deals with the following issues: The appellant Eley, respresented by Mr Burke, had throughout the meetings with the RSPCA and the undercover officers, as was apparent from the transcript of their conversations, questioned whether the proposed sale was lawful. But they gave equivocal answers, all avoiding giving a straight answerto those questions. He submits that Eley, in those circumstances, had been entrapped by the RSPCA undercover officer, and should receive a substantial discount on that account.He pointed out, as indeed did Miss Davies for the appellant Bull, that new Regulations came into force in 1997, replacing the 1985 Regulations and, under those Regulations, the sale certainly of part of the catalogue of rhino horn would have been lawful because about 30 per cent of the rhino hornwas from South Africa and there is special treatment in those Regulations. In all the circumstances MrBurke asked the Court to quash the sentence completely or to reduce it. Miss Davies, in the course of her submissions, accepted that the sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was correct in principle, but submitted, in all the circumstances, that it was too long, but that he, like Eley, had put forward his plea on the basis of recklessness as to knowledge of the illegality, but she accepted that he was in a different position to Eley, because he had the advantage of knowledge of the sale and purchase of the single horn in 1994, which was accompanied by the exemption certificate, so he was on much more notice than Eley that sales of this kind of commodity were now regulated. But as Miss Davies frankly accepted, her principal submissions were not on the sentence, but on theforfeiture order, and she submitted that whatever exact value of this large quantity of rhino horn (andits exact value could not be known), it was considerably in excess of what the appellant bought and paid for it in the 1960s and early 70s when he had spent a few pounds here and a few pounds there, and the collection had assumed a much more greater value since. Whatever its actual value, it is now worth many thousands of pounds, and its forfeiture, in circumstances where he claimed to have bought legitimately, was excessive and harsh and could not be justified. Judgement: The offence of selling or offering to sell restricted specimens was a serious offence; the custody threshold was crossed and a custodial sentence was called for in the case of each appellant. In view of the first appellant's poor health, his sentence would be reduced to six months' imprisonment. The sentence of 15 months' imprisonment imposed on the second appellant was correct, but the forfeiture order would be quashed. (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC) Texto completo UK-13.pdf Página web www.unodc.org