Question 2
Weaknesses of Criminal Sanctions in Environmental Law Applicable to the
Scenario
Evidentiary Burden in Proving Criminal Guilt
To obtain a conviction under criminal law, proof must be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. In this case, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused poachers hunted the rhino illegally and without a permission. Since
environmental crimes investigations frequently rely significantly on technical
evidence, this evidentiary burden might be difficult to meet. For instance:
In order to get testimony from Dr. Child, an expert in environmental protection, the
prosecution has postponed the trial. Technical elements of the case, including the
importance of rhino poaching to the larger ecology and the particulars of the crime,
depend heavily on his evidence.
High Costs Associated with Investigations and Prosecutions
Environmental crimes can entail intricate investigations that call for certain tools and
knowledge. In the case:
The use of security cars to guard the crime scene and an expensive wildlife
investigative equipment were key components of the inquiry. These costs
demonstrate the costly burden of looking into these kinds of crimes.
The prosecution's budget is further burdened by the extra costs associated with the
court procedures, such as Dr. Child's consulting fees. These budgetary limitations
might make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate environmental crimes
with the rigour that is necessary.
Delays in the Legal Process
The requirement for specialized evidence and expert witness frequently results in
lengthy criminal proceedings, especially those involving environmental offences. In
the case:
Rhino Thorn's justice has been delayed because the trial has been rescheduled to fit
Dr. Child's hectic schedule. Extended delays may harm the case in the following
ways:
a) permitting the defence to undermine the prosecution's case by taking advantage
of procedural delays.
b) resulting in witnesses' statements losing their significance over time or witnesses
like Izak Wild being unavailable.
Limited Capacity for Technical and Specialized Knowledge
The intricacies of environmental law are sometimes beyond the capabilities of
criminal courts. The court could not fully comprehend the technical nature of the
evidence, such as the ecological effects of poaching and the difficulties of rhino
breeding operations.
The court in the case mostly depends on Dr. Child's knowledge, demonstrating the
inability of the internal system to evaluate complex issues without outside help.
This reliance on outside specialists increases costs and time commitments, which
may reduce the efficacy of criminal penalties for environmental offences.
Limited Deterrent Effect
Due to inadequate punishment or enforcement, criminal punishments frequently fail
to prevent future environmental offences, even when convictions are obtained. In the
case:
Only three of the twelve poaching instances since 2016 have resulted in successful
prosecutions, according to Izak Wild's evidence. Poachers who believe there is little
chance of being prosecuted are probably encouraged by this low success rate,
which shows how ineffective criminal penalties are as a deterrent.
Resource Constraints
There are frequently insufficient resources available to law enforcement
organizations entrusted with investigating and prosecuting environmental offences.
In the case:
Although SAPS launched "Project Blue" to stop poaching, these programs' long-term
viability depends on ongoing financial support and resource distribution. Insufficient
funding could make it more difficult to continue long-term monitoring, inquiries, and
prosecutions, which would ultimately reduce the impact of criminal penalties.
Conclusion
Addressing environmental crimes like poaching is severely hampered by the inherent
flaws in criminal punishments, which include a heavy burden of proof, high
expenses, delays, limited technical capacity, poor deterrence, and resource
limitations. These flaws could make it more difficult for the prosecution to get a
conviction in the current case and discourage poaching in the future, which
emphasizes the necessity of supplementary strategies like restorative justice and
more stringent regulatory enforcement.
Question 3
3.1
A project, facility, or development that benefits a larger community or economy but
has a substantial negative impact on the local population's social, environmental, or
health conditions is referred to as a locally unwanted land use (LULU). These effects,
which disproportionately affect low-income or disadvantaged groups, frequently
include pollution, noise, environmental deterioration, or public health hazards. The
idea draws attention to disparities in how facilities are positioned and run, frequently
disregarding the rights and welfare of locals.
Applicability to the Scenario
First Class Foods' Sandfontein manufacturing procedure complies with LULU
requirements. Despite creating jobs for the local population, the industry poses
serious health and environmental hazards, such as tainting the water supply with
benzene and other carcinogens. Children in the community have experienced severe
stomach problems as a direct result of this pollution, showing major harm to the
public's health. Furthermore, prior to introducing the new product line, First Class
Foods failed to carry out adequate community consultations or take the environment
into account. These acts are a prime example of the LULU's habitual disrespect for
local welfare.
Ethical and Legal Implications
First Class Foods increases the vulnerability of the community and transgresses
accountability and transparency standards by withholding documents pertaining to
their environmental impact assessment. Residents in Sandfontein, who already deal
with socioeconomic issues like restricted access to healthcare, are unfairly burdened
by the company's actions. The circumstance exemplifies the injustices frequently
linked to LULUs, when corporate interests take precedence over the welfare of the
local community. Immediate action is required to address the ethical and legal
ramifications, which include community involvement, regulatory intervention, and
environmental impact mitigation.
3.2
The right to a healthy and safe environment, guaranteed by Section 24 of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, is the one being violated in this
situation. While Section 24(b) requires the state to take reasonable steps to prevent
pollution, promote conservation, and secure ecologically sustainable development,
Section 24(a) expressly guarantees everyone the right to an environment that does
not negatively impact their health and well-being.
This right is being blatantly violated in this instance by the community's drinking
water being tainted with the carcinogen benzene. The detrimental impacts of the
contaminated water, especially the severe gastrointestinal disorders that the
youngsters are experiencing, show that the health and wellbeing of the community
are being jeopardized. Furthermore, this constitutional guarantee is further
compromised by First Class Foods' failure to address the environmental impact of
their production operations.
Relevant Legislation Protecting the Right
National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998):
In South Africa, NEMA is the main framework for environmental protection and
management. It places a strong emphasis on sustainable development and
mandates that businesses stop, reduce, and clean up pollution and environmental
damage. NEMA Section 28 imposes a responsibility of care on people and
businesses to protect the environment and public health. This obligation is broken by
First Class Foods' acts, which contaminate the river without taking any preventative
action.
Water Services Act, 1997 (Act No. 108 of 1997):
The purpose of this Act is to guarantee fair access to enough clean water. The Act's
Section 3(1) ensures that everyone has the right to have basic water services. This
Act is directly violated by First Class Foods' poisoning of the local water supply,
which makes the water unfit for use and consumption.
National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998):
The conservation and sustainable use of South Africa's water resources are
governed under the National Water Act. Landowners or users, like First Class Foods,
are required by Section 19 to take all reasonable precautions against water resource
contamination. A violation of this Act occurs when manufacturing techniques are not
made to prevent damage to river water.
Act No. 2 of 2000, the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), 2000:
The public's right to obtain information that impacts their rights is protected by PAIA.
Since the information relate to the health and environmental effects of First Class
Foods' operations, which have a direct impact on the community's constitutional
rights, the company's reluctance to produce the records the community requested
violates PAIA.
First Class Foods' poisoning of Sandfontein's water supply violates the community's
constitutional right to a healthy and safe environment. The company's failure to
disclose important details on their environmental impact exacerbates this violation.
Together, pertinent laws like NEMA, the Water Services Act, the National Water Act,
and PAIA seek to safeguard this right and set up procedures for holding polluters
responsible. To correct the problem and maintain the community's constitutional and
legislative protections, immediate legal and regulatory action is needed.
3.3
Intergenerational Equity
Intergenerational equity is a key idea associated with sustainable development.
According to this idea, it is the duty of the present generation to manage the
environment and natural resources in a way that does not jeopardize the capacity of
future generations to meet their own requirements. It guarantees that modern
development takes long-term environmental effects into account while attempting to
strike a balance between environmental preservation and economic growth. The
goal of sustainability is to leave a permanent legacy of ecological health and
resource availability for the benefit of future generations, and intergenerational
fairness embodies this goal.
Integration of Environmental, Social, and Economic Considerations
The integration of social, economic, and environmental factors is the second idea. To
make progress without endangering the environment or vulnerable communities,
sustainable development necessitates a comprehensive strategy that strikes a
balance between these three factors. This idea makes sure that environmental
preservation is considered in conjunction with economic and social development
when making decisions. This principle advocates activities that concurrently alleviate
poverty, conserve ecosystems, and promote economic progress by fostering the
synergy between these pillars. This aligns with global initiatives such as the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations.
