In the matter between:

and

JUDGMENT

The appellant, Mr Andrew White, was convicted in the Laaiplek Magistrate's Court on 30 April 2009 for the contravention of the regulations under the Marine Living Resources Act Number 18 of 1998. He was sentenced on 10 June 2009 to two years imprisonment in terms of section 58(4) of the Act. The charges arises out of an incident of 25 February 2009 when at Dwarskeersbospad, Laaiplek, the appellant was found in the possession of 16 290 West Coast rock lobster, (crayfish) tails.

The appellant was legally represented at his trial and having tendered a plea of guilty to the charge, was convicted thereupon. He successfully applied for leave to appeal against the sentence. The magistrate thereafter furnished his written reasons for the sentence.

It appears that the appellant had failed to timeously prosecute the appeal and he seeks condonation. The respondent does not oppose the application and having considered the reasons advanced by the appellant, I propose to grant condonation.

A Court of Appeal will not likely interfere with a sentence imposed by a lower court, unless there is evidence of a misdirection or any irregularity in the assessment of the facts or in the application of law. and the sentence imposed is shockingly inappropriate. The trial court is pre-eminently vested with the discretion of an appropriate sentence.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the magistrate had over-emphasised the interest of the community and had not paid sufficient attention to the personal circumstances of the appellant, and had failed to consider an alternative sentence. That submission is clearly not supported by the written reasons furnished by the magistrate.

1.	The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
2.	The sentence imposed by the magistrate is confirmed.