Suspected perlemoen poachers back in Gqeberha dock after high court reverses ruling on undercover recordings

After crucial evidence was ruled inadmissible by a Gqeberha magistrate, two alleged perlemoen poachers thought they were off the hook when the case against them was blown out of the water.

But Raymond Taylor and Roland Hudson are expected to return to court soon after the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court in Makhana ruled that undercover recordings, where they allegedly bribed SANParks officials to turn a blind eye to their illegal operations, should be allowed as evidence.

The high court decision came after the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) appealed against the Magistrates’ Court judgment, meaning that the case would be reopened and pick up where it left off before the court heard the crucial recordings.

Taylor, 56, and Hudson, 51, faced a string of charges after their arrest in May 2022, including corruption, racketeering, contravention of the Marine Living Resources Act and contravention of the National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act.

The matter dates back to February 2022, when the accused allegedly made contact with SANParks officials with the intention of bribing them so that they could illegally harvest perlemoen from the reefs surrounding Bird Island, off the coast of Nelson Mandela Bay.

Bird Island forms part of the Addo Elephant National Park and is a protected nature reserve.

According to the charge sheet, Taylor contacted a SANParks field ranger via WhatsApp with “an idea that could work well for … both of [them]”, related to diving near Bird Island.

The ranger subsequently reported the communication with Taylor to his superiors, who in turn reported the matter to the police. This ultimately led to an intricate undercover collaboration between SANParks and the police.

In March 2022, the ranger met Taylor in the parking lot of a Newton Park restaurant. The ranger was wearing a hidden recording device and recorded a conversation wherein the accused allegedly propositioned the ranger to become “a contact on the island” who would arrange that perlemoen poaching activities around Bird Island would go unreported.

In the weeks that followed, Taylor introduced Hudson as another role player in the alleged scheme, while the ranger brought one of his colleagues on board as well.

‘R20,000 paid to officials’

During a follow-up meeting in April 2022, at a shopping centre in Walmer, the accused allegedly paid the SANParks officials R20,000 up front to turn a blind eye to their activities.

Besides once again using hidden recording devices, police officials were monitoring the meeting via CCTV cameras from a nearby security office.

The charge sheet further stated that Taylor operated a company offering specialised marine services, giving him access to the necessary boats and diving equipment. Hudson would allegedly skipper the vessels on the planned poaching expeditions.

In the weeks that followed, the accused allegedly sent the officials photos to confirm that a dive had taken place.

In May 2022, another meeting between the officials and the accused took place at the same location in Walmer. It was communicated to the officials that they would no longer be getting their money up front, but that a portion would be held back until the poached perlemoen had been processed and sold.

Arrests, but case thrown out

When their meeting concluded, police officials swooped in and arrested Taylor and Hudson.

Their matter was heard before the Gqeberha Magistrates’ Court, but during the trial, the accused’s legal representation brought an application that the conduct of the police and officials constituted entrapment, that the accused were duped into incriminating themselves, and that the recordings should be declared inadmissible as evidence before the court.

The application led to a trial-within-trial wherein the magistrate ruled that the recordings were inadmissible. As a result, the accused were discharged at the conclusion of the State’s case.

The NPA appealed against the magistrate’s decision, and the appeal was upheld last week. The high court determined that the magistrate was mistaken in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible, and due to the importance of the evidence in the State’s case, it could change the entire outcome of the trial.

In its judgment, the high court ruled that the discharge and the judgment of the trial-within-a-trial be set aside and replaced with a judgment that allowed the recordings to be accepted as evidence before court.

The judgment concluded that the matter against Taylor and Hudson be reopened in the regional court and “referred back to the magistrate to receive evidence of the events and statements made during the meetings, including the recordings”.

The judgment further said that the “guilt or otherwise of the [accused] should be assessed afresh[...].”

At this stage, it is unclear when the matter will return to the Gqeberha Magistrates’ Court. DM