Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A businessman from Sangre Grande has sued over the seizure of over 200 exotic birds valued at over half a million dollars—$500,000.
The judicial review lawsuit, brought by Yi Hui Chou also known as Jimmy Chow against the Chief Game Warden, went to trial before High Court Judge Kevin Ramcharan at the Waterfront Judicial Centre in Port-of-Spain, yesterday.
The lawsuit centres around a raid on Chou’s building in Sangre Grande by game wardens in September 2021 during which the caged birds were found in a room in his house located upstairs of his restaurant.
Chou admitted that he did not have permits to keep the birds from the Wildlife Section of the Ministry of Agriculture’s Forestry Division, but claimed that he made applications for such permits in 2013, 2019, and months before the raid.
He was eventually charged with possessing the birds without a permit. The case is still pending before the Sangre Grande Magistrates’ Court.
The birds, including five rosellas valued at $17,500, six African grey parrots valued at $210,000, and an umbrella cockatoo valued at $38,000, were seized and transferred to the Emperor Valley Zoo where they continue to be housed.
In the lawsuit, Chou contends that the section breached its statutory duty in delaying making decisions in relation to his applications.
He is also alleging that the game wardens did not follow the “domestication test” under the Regulations that were passed together with the Conservation of Wildlife Act.
Under the test, where a person is found to have a protected animal without a permit may be granted one (a permit) if the animal refuses to go free if given an opportunity.
Testifying yesterday, Chou claimed that he purchased some of the birds from dealers who were permitted to import and breed them and were given some of them by people who could no longer afford to care for them or who were migrating.
He claimed that when the game wardens arrived at his business he believed that they were there to check his inventory as part of the approval process for his previous permit applications.
Shown photographs of the birds that were taken by the wardens, which showed more than five being kept in a cage in many cases, Chou maintained that the cages were sufficient based on the size and needs of the specific birds.
He referred to several documents which recorded when he was “gifted” some of the birds by people including strangers, who knew of his love of birds.
“They bring the birds to me,” Chou said.
Testifying on behalf of Chou, was Valsayn resident Susan Nieves, who Chou purchased several of his birds from.
Nieves claimed that she would import birds with the permission of the section and then sell them to people like Chou.
Asked by Senior Counsel Terrence Bharath, who led the legal team for the Chief Game Warden, how she was able to claim that some of Chou’s birds were sourced from her without seeing specific birds that were seized, Nieves suggested that the claim was based on the list of the birds provided by Chou and her memory of the birds she sold him.
However, Bharath pointed out that some of the birds that she sold Chou were not listed by him in his court filings.
In his evidence, Assistant Conservator of Forests and head of the section David Mahabir said that he assisted the wardens in identifying the birds on several video calls.
Mahabir was quizzed by Chou’s lawyer Rajiv Persad, SC, over his understanding of the regulations.
While he initially claimed that people found in possession of non-native birds could have only obtained them through importation, he later admitted that they could be bought from permitted importers and breeders.
However, he claimed that under the regulations people like Nieves had to seek the permission of the Chief Game Warden before selling their birds.
He admitted that purchasers like Chou were only required to obtain a permit to keep the birds.
“An application is not a permit,” he said.
Mahabir also admitted that there was no prohibition against citizens obtaining more birds while they have pending applications for those already in their possession.
Dealing with processing the applications, Mahabir claimed that the section was previously severely understaffed.
Last to testify was game warden Rajeev Harrinarine, who led the inspection of Chou’s home.
Harrinanan claimed that the domestication test was feasible as he had concerns over whether the non-native birds had diseases and would affect the local ecosystem if freed.
He claimed that of the 160 birds Chou applied for in 2019, only 98 had survived when he performed the inspection.
“It raised a red flag for me. Why are so many dying?” he said, as he claimed that the birds were seized as he was unsure whether the high death rate was due to the conditions Chou was keeping them in.
Asked why he did not interview Nieves to obtain her records of the sales to Chou, Harrinarine claimed that he spoke to her on the phone and she admitted that she did not obtain permission before conducting the sales.
Through the lawsuit, Chou is seeking a series of declarations over the section’s handling of his applications and the seizure, an order for the release of the birds, and compensation.
Justice Ramcharan is expected to rule on the case after hearing legal submissions at a later date.
Chou was also represented by Vanita Ramroop and Gabriel Hernandez, while Ronelle Hinds, Candice Alexander, Kendra Mark and Anala Mohan appeared alongside Bharath for the State.