R v Lamouche Pays/Territoire Canada Type de cour Nationale- cour inférieure Date Aoû 10, 1998 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal The Provincial Court of Alberta Langue Anglais Sujet Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes Résumé The accused has plead guilty to one count of selling walleye contrary to the Alberta Fishery Regulations thereby contravening section 78 of the Canada Fisheries Act. Undercover operations had established Mr. Lamouche as part of a group of mainly family members who poached and trafficked in fish and wildlife.The undercover operator wanted to identify the accused's clients and bought a large amount of walleye from associates of the accused. He then asked the accused to assist him in selling the walleye as his usual buyers "backed out". The undercover operator provided evidence of the accused's general involvement in this trade. The pattern of illegal trafficking in both fish and wildlife was evident, as well as the accused claiming his treaty rights as a justification for his actions. During the hearing, a walleye expert was invited - Mr. Sullivan - who informed the Court about the nature and dynamics of resources of walleye and their depletion. Almost 80% of the walleye fisheries in Alberta collapsed by poor management, monitoring, and jurisprudence. This factor was important in considering an appropriate punishment for the accused, as actions such as these gravely contribute to the situation of walleye resources, which are under protection of relevant legislation. Judgement: The judge concluded that the offence must be viewed as serious. The commercial nature of the accused's conduct, the precarious position of walleye in Alberta, the accused's lack of insight and remorse and his abuse of the special status that he enjoys to the detriment of other native people and persons not enjoying that status, all are factors which could justify a significant prison term. However, the Crown was not seeking a prison term on an offence, which would not in the usual case attract a prison term. Furthermore, taking into account the failure of the government to put in place regulations to properly manage this and other species of fish and wildlife, the Court decided not to impose a prison term. Rather, the Court asked for a $7,500 (Canadian Dollar) fine. This amount however, is beyond the accused's reasonable ability to pay, and considering those circumstances a fine of $3,000 (Canadian Dollar) was imposed, in default statutory manner. (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC) Texte intégral Canada-10.pdf Site web www.unodc.org