Celestino Shate and Faso Moyo v The State

On 28 August 2018, appellants together with another accomplice were alleged to have unlawfully hunted rhinoceros at Bubye Valley Conservancy, Beitbridge, without a valid permit or licence. A fence guard observed three men entering the conservancy. Scouts tracked the spoor, which they claimed was following a fresh rhino spoor, for seven kilometres. Two men (the appellants) were arrested; the third escaped with a rifle. The first appellant had an axe, the second had a satchel with food, and the third who escaped had a rifle. The appellants pleaded not guilty but were convicted by the Magistrate's Court at Beitbridge and sentenced to the mandatory ten years imprisonment each under section 45(1) of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14] as read with section 11 of the General Laws Amendment Act No. 5 of 2011.

• Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were hunting rhinoceros
• Whether expert evidence was required to establish that the footprints were following a rhino spoor
• Whether the witnesses were qualified to identify and interpret animal spoors without establishing their expertise on record
• Whether extra-curial statements and indications were properly admitted into evidence
• Whether the conviction was sustainable based on suspicion rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt

The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence were set aside.

The binding legal principle established is that in wildlife crime cases involving tracking and identification of animal spoors, expert evidence is required to prove that footprints were following a specific animal's spoor. Witnesses must establish their qualifications, skills, training and experience in spoor identification and tracking on the record before their opinions can be accepted by the court. The court cannot make findings on matters requiring specialized knowledge without proper expert guidance. A conviction cannot be based on suspicion alone, no matter how strong; the State must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Extra-curial statements made to police officers or persons in authority must comply with admissibility requirements before such evidence can be admitted.

The court made non-binding observations emphasizing the importance of police maintaining proper records of interrogations and interviews with suspects. The court noted that failure to produce investigation notes or statements regarding interviews with suspects is highly suggestive that undue influence might have been applied during interrogation. The court referenced the obiter remarks in S v Mutasa regarding the need for satisfactory records of what transpires during police interrogations. The court observed that the lack of documentation is an irregularity that militates against fair play and prejudices an accused's right to a fair trial, particularly where complaints of ill-treatment and assault are made against investigating officers.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence as it establishes important principles regarding the admissibility and requirements of expert evidence in wildlife crime cases. It clarifies that spoor identification and tracking require specialized expertise that must be established on record before such evidence can be relied upon for conviction. The case reinforces the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. It also serves as a reminder to law enforcement and prosecutors about the proper procedures for admitting extra-curial statements and the importance of documenting investigations, particularly interviews and indications by accused persons. The judgment upholds fair trial rights and the high standard of proof required in criminal cases.