The Supreme Court ruling on March 1 that fined five turtle poachers some R175,000 met with strong praise this month from environment officials, who felt the decision set a precedent that will deter others from poaching.

But the case has also brought up the issue of ownership with respect to property used in committing environment-related crimes.

The five men involved in the case were originally arrested in October last year in a boat named the Galate off the coast of Denis Island.

The owner of the Galate was not among the crew and was never implicated in the case for any wrongdoing, but the Galate itself was taken into court custody and remains impounded.

Presiding Justice Bernadin Renaud convicted the five poachers and sentenced each of them to a fine of R35,000. If the men do not pay the fines before May 7, the court will consider jail terms for the men or possibly move to confiscate the Galate.

In an interview with the media earlier this month, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources Ronny Jumeau said that he would like to see the seizures of personal property, like boats or trucks, used to commit offences against the environment as part of a sentence depending on the circumstances of the case, and not necessarily as a last resort.

Minister Jumeau mentioned the possibility of drafting new legislation to include that provision and others under the law which would allow judges more flexibility in determining appropriate sentences for environment offenders.

An amendment along those lines would have to fit certain criteria relating to a person’s fundamental right to property, as outlined in the Constitution, says Principal State Counsel Ronny Govinden.

Such a law must pass a series of checks to allow the limitation of that fundamental right, such as whether or not the law is necessary in a democratic society or if it serves the public interest.

But Mr Govinden said that a proposed amendment for environment-related crimes might possibly be argued under the same pretence as current laws involving other violations, which allow for the confiscation of property associated with drug trafficking and equally serious offences.

If passed, the law would not only apply to owners of vessels or vehicles involved in environmental crimes who were aware of such actions, but also to owners who were found to be negligent in allowing illegal activities through the use of their property.

Mr Govinden said that an owner of seized property would, however, have the right to argue against confiscation under certain circumstances, such as in the event of theft or the unauthorised use of the property.

LINKS