S v TARR 1999 (2) ZLR 308 (H)

Flynote

Criminal law ” statutory offences ” Parks and Wild Life Act [Chapter 20:14] ” s 24(1)(b) ” hunting in a national park ” what is a national park ” animal shot on shore between Lake Kariba and high water mark fixed by Minister ” such shoreline not c part of national park ” "hunt" ” what is

Headnote

The appellant, a professional hunter, and his client shot an elephant on the shore line of Lake Kariba. The lake itself is a national park and the Omay Communal Lands abutted the lake at the point where the elephant was shot. It was not clear whether the elephant was shot in the Omay Communal Land at a point between the edge of the water and the designated full supply level of the lake. But under s 20(2) of the Act, exposed land between the full supply level and the actual water level is deemed to be part of the land abutting onto the lake, that is, in this case, the Omay Communal Land. The appellant held a permit to hunt, issued by the controlling authority for the communal land in question. He was charged with hunting in a national park without a permit. E

Held, that the appellant had authority to hunt in the communal land and could not be convicted of hunting in a national park. The only basis on which he could have been convicted, taking account of the wide definition of "hunt" in s 2 of the Act, would have been if the evidence showed that he had searched for the elephant while he was on the lake - even if the elephant was shot in the Omay Communal Land.