Skip to main content
Title:
Hunting inside a forest tract reservation – hunting during a prohibited time - hunting permit expired – place of misdemeanor – necessity to mention while writing the report
Party:
Morocco
Region:
Africa
Type of document:
National - higher court
Date of text:
March 25, 2015
Data source:
InforMEA
Court name:
Court of Cassation
Seat of court:
Rabat
Abstract:

Defense tending to revoke the report of the Administration of Forests and Waters, based on the fact that defendant was not apprehended while committing the offense, is not admitted since he never displayed it before the trail court pursuant to Article 323 of the code of criminal procedures which requires raising this kind of defenses before the opening of trial. The appeal court which decision was contested relied on the report of the administration of forests and waters legally written pursuant to Article 65 of the Dahir 10/10/1917 which can only be contested by forgery, and it is established from it that he confessed hunting during a prohibited time and inside a reservation enforced by seizing a rifle after unloading ammunition and the appellant being onsite with hunting dogs and the hunting permit being expired. The court established from these facts the elements of guiltiness attributed to him including the element of intent and thus justified its decision sufficiently, while its reasoning that the employees of the administration of forests and water stopped the appellant in a forest in Ben Yehya as opposed to being stopped at the farms of Ain Fes as was mentioned in the report remains additional and has no effect on the validity of the decision as long as the place he was caught at is the place of the misdemeanor, the writers of the report must be manifested during the execution of the report, knowing that the appellant stated to the employees of the administration of forests and water that he: “he knows that he is hunting in a prohibited and inside a reservation and that’s what happened”. The other of arguments evoked by defendant discuss facts that are subjected to trial judges evaluation and should not be reviewed by supreme court judges.


Request rejected

Available in:
Court of Cassation’s Decisions on the environment