|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(V11) 1 CLR 122A
1924 May 30
[FISHER, C.J. AND GRIMSHAW, P.J.]
POLICE
v.
IOANNIS HARALAMBOU ELLENA AND OTHERS.
RESERVED AREA-SHOOTING IN-GAME AND WILD BIRDS PROTECTION LAW No. 15 OF 1911, AND No. 38 OF 1922-INTERPRETATION LAW No. 10 OF 1901.
An area was reserved by Order in Council dated 10th August, 1921, by virtue of powers vested in the High Commissioner under the provisions of the Game and Wild Birds Protection Law, 1911.
Law 38 of 1922 repealed the 1911 Law.
A Magisterial Court convicted the accused of shooting within an area reserved by Order in Council dated 10th August, 1921, and fined them.
Application by accused to set aside conviction on grounds of illegality.
For Accused Mitsides.
For Police the Assistants King's Advocate.
Judgment: On the 10th August, 1921, an Order in Council was made under a power created by section 12 of the Game and Wild Birds Protection Law, 1911, reserving a certain area for three years from the 12th August, 1921, That area was protected from intruders by section 22 of the Law which made it an offence to shoot, kill, take or pursue, or attempt to shoot, kill, take or pursue game in an area reserved under the Law. The penalty was a fine not exceeding £5, compulsory forfeiture of license which then cost 10s. and compulsory prohibition from carrying a gun for a period of twelve months from conviction. The Game and Wild Birds Protection Law of 1922 repealed the Law of 1911, thus putting an end to the power to reserve areas under that law, and to the penal consequences imposed by that law on trespassers in reserved areas. The new law created a similar power to reserve areas, but the area may be sixty square miles instead of fifty. The law of 1922 protects reserved areas by section 14 which makes it an offence to shoot, kill, or pursue, or attempt to shoot, kill or pursue game in a reserved area, and the penalties imposed by section 21 are for a first offence a fine not exceeding £5, forfeiture of license, costing now £1 (section 3), and prohibition from carrying a gun for twelve months, while for a second or subsequent offence the penalties are substantially increased.
In the case before us three men were charged with pursuing and attempting to kill game, on an area reserved by the Order in Council under the Law of 1911, in breach of sections 14 and 21 of the Law of 1922. The section which originally protected the reserved area having been repealed we have to consider whether the word "reserved area" in section 14 of the new Law must be construed to include an area reserved under an extinct power. In our opinion it cannot. It is clear that the words must be construed to refer to areas reserved under the powers created by the Law of 1922.
It has been argued that by virtue of section 14 (2) (a) of the Interpretation Law, 1901, the Order in Council of 1921 is still alive. Even if that be so, and we think it is at least doubtful, the protective penal provisions could not survive their express repeal, and as we are of opinion that the new penal provisions cannot be stretched, so as to protect an area reserved under the old Law, we are of opinion that the conviction must be quashed.