Lance Corporal Daniel Sandi & 10 Others v S (CR APP 5 of 2005) [2008] SLCA 61 (14 November 2008)

cR APPS 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13414/2005 to IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF STERRA LEONE BETWEEN: PR LANCE COPRORAL DANIEL SANDI & 10 OTHERS - APPELLANTS AND THE STATE ~ RESPONDENT CA, OSHO-WILLIAMS (now deceased) and C.C.V.TAYLOR Esq for the Appellants S.A. BAH Esq for the Respondent TUDGMENT DELIVERED ON IGN oVEHBER, 2008

1. This is an appeal brought by the 11 Appellants herein against their respective convictions and sentences, for the offences of Treason and Misprision of Treason by the High Court. ‘On 20™ December,2004 the High Court of Sierra Leone, RASCHED.J (now deceased) Presiding with a Jury, convicted the Ist to the 10" Appellants on a three Count Indictment: two Counts for the offence of Treason contrary to Section 3(1)(0) and (b) respectively of the Treason and State Offences Act,1963, as amended, and the 11°" Appellant on one Count for the offence of Misprision of Treason. The 1” to 10" Appellants were sentenced to death by hanging on both Counts: and the 11 Appellant was sentenced toa term of Imprisonment of 10 years. asi

2. By Notices of Appeal dated 40" January,2005 the 1", 2, 3%, Sth ‘and ir tive convictions and 6" and 11" Appellants appealed against their respec = sentences. By Notices of Appea! dated 7! January 2005 the 4”. 7" 8, 9%, and 10" Appellants, appealed ‘against their respective convictions ‘and sentences. :

3. The Treason charges in Counts 1nd 2 of the Indictment state that the aad of whom were acquitted at the trial, Appellants, and other persons, three i prepared, by conspiring tagether 10 ver" ANON the Government of Sierra Leone by unlawful means, in that they agreed to overthrow and take over the Government by unlawful means: ond 1 suspend the Constitution of Si means other than that provided by Law. It was alleged uigeeerasd vJeavoured 10 overthrow the Government also, that these same persons Cr" L

2x by unlawful means, in that they agreed to over \35 toke Government by unlawful means; to suspend the Constitution pain other than that provided by law; and to overthrow the Government by unlawful means, by carrying out and participata¥Sin an armed attack at = — the Army Engineers’ Regiment at Wellington, Freetown. The convoluted ‘and tautologous manner in which the Indictment was drafted, shows that the prosecution was in trouble from the word “go.” Thus, for ‘example, the Indictment alleges that the Appellants prepared to overthrow the Government by unlawful means, by conspiring to do so, and by agreeing to do so.

4, Count 3 of the Indictment, charges the 11" Appellant alone with the offence of Misprision of Treason. Misprision of Treason is the offence of concealing the commission of an act of Treason.

5, 40 witnesses were called for the prosecution, none for the defence. The exhibits tendered, were lettered "A" to "DDDD.” The trial would have commenced on 23 April,2003, but for non-compliance with the Orders of the Court for service of copies of the Indictment, and the proofs of evidence on the Appellants. B V S KEBBIE Esq, PP appeared for the

prosecution together with A K A BARBER Esq, O V ROBBIN-MASON Esq, SABAH Esq, MS CC JARRETT, and J EO KEBBIE Esq. For the defence were the late C A OSHO-WILLTAMS and $ M SESAY Esq. The matter was thus adjourned to 1 May.2003 when the Court was informed by ther by MR ROBBIN-MASON the current Acting PP, that the Chief Justice had appointed a Special Session for the trial of ‘the Appellants pursuant to Rule 5(1) of the High Court (Criminal Sessions) Rules,1965, and that Notice of the Appointment had been published in the Gazette. 7 the next adjourned date, 9 ‘May 2003 amendments were ~~ tot ‘ nd Tiler after which the charges were read oe ee rasan their co-accused. All of them vende eae 3003 Ont May pail re, ie ” ‘ne erga e oe e ane forthe prosecution, and began leading

Evidence

reduced below 12, and the

6. During the course of the Trial, "Rea ene concent to the trial Prosecution and the AppeltnTs semecution closed its case on 15" proceeding with 11 jurors) ia " reeeceused persons Were put to their ‘Tune,2004, On 23" June. he 5t Appellant, chose to rely on their election, all the Appellants. ave Te a

statements to the Police. He had first el _ se ‘on 29 Tune,2004 the 5 Aj to testify on cath. Lat ppellant changed his deovde Court he was relying on his statement to th iad the Court between 13 July,2004 and 24 A pee Lctaibepinal (OSHO-WILLTAMS addressed the Court 2004 The lee me pd 3r4.6t7",8,9" 10711" eorsiaiiiante '3746"%.7" 8,9" 1011" and 16" accused persons, beginning 25 ‘august 2004 and ending on 12 October.2004. § M SESAY Esq addressed onbehalf of the 4",12",13"14" i. aeapien 12113"%,14" and 15th accused persons between 13 aber, 2004 and 11 November 2004: and A KOROMA esq for the 5 accused between 16" and 17 November 2004. ‘Summing-up should have eermenced on 22 November 2004 but duc to the absence of jurors, did not actually commence until 7" or 9" December 2004 and ‘ended on 20 December, 2004 when the jury delivered the verdicts set out above.

7. Thave narrated the course of the trial so os to give some perspective f2 the immense task the Trial Judge faced, The trial spamed a period of nearly 20 months. There were [ond preaks in between due to the absence of Counsel, the jurors. witnesses or likely witnesses, and electricity. Even ‘the Summing-Up it seems ended abruptly at page 394 of the Record. Though it is clear there must RAVE een several adjourements during NE summing-Up, none of this has Bee? re corded by the LTJ. We do not know aorvpat stage he invited the JUTY T° retire to consider their verdicts all we have are his minute at Pode 395 recording the verdicts of the jury We do not know whether the JUY ok time to consider thei VECO: and the length of time this consideration took: nor do we know whether they were sequestered after the end of the ‘summing-UP until the ee hers were delivered: All of "ese procedures Rave 10 be a ea the LTI as evidence that the ria! has bee" conducted in accor vee the Criminal Procedure ‘Act 1965: ‘The lack of evidence that there

: would of itself have compelled us t2 teen due eompliance with 1H? Act were ond unsatistactorY “ A sing U! fe , 8 set aside the cone tion’ och the trial was conducted, mistakes Given the spasroate manne 1 ye LTT hes “ nimelf been oh were bound to be MadEPY T™ anaferting. first, 10 the Mosisterial experienced Prose before tr ate 1992 10 Te High Court Bench. Bench in 1986, before Mis cin gto ‘ter health ord But the task he faced "OS enn or ected wth vadden demise may have been, in ™Y estima gins in some measure why the complaints nearly two years later. THIS explo!

made by the Appellants are supported by the J27 ‘ond MR BAH for the Respondent, conceded the grounds board decided to allow the appeals bi ceca

9. We allowed the Appellants to file and to argue additional grounds of appeal. Filing was done on 24 April,2008 and arguments were heard from both sides on 30 April,2008 on which date Judgment was reserved. The late OSHO-WILLTAMS Esq began by abandoning his original grounds of appeal, and sought our leave to argue the fresh grounds filed on 24 ‘April,2008. The two main complaints which run through all of the appeals are that the trial Judge failed to analyse the evidence led by the prosecution and to relate the same to the law: and that the LTJ failed to direct the jury adequately on the law relating to accomplices, and to the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. Other grounds canvassed, were that the LTJ failed to direct the jury on the issue of alibi raised by the 2"! Appellant, and that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence. We hold the view that the complaints relating to the directions on the evidence of accomplices, and on the issue of alibi evidence, are justified. 10.Tt is well established in our jurisprudence. (now abrogated in the UK by Section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order ‘Act 1994) that where the guilt or otherwise of an accused person depends on the vatence of an accomplice, it is the duty of the Trial J judge to warn the jury that though may convict the accused Pertn on such evden, itis dangerous to do so unless it is corroborated. He should on in at corroboration means in aw, and should indicate the type howard ns which could amount to corroboration. It is for the jury 7 lecide a er ( such evidence amounts to corroboration oF not. Fire to give su vide Y ron being quashed irrespective of whether rrning wll result ina convitio Benga TT esis thee ues earraborative evidence OHTA appeal spelt out at page 155 in the J Kec “The duty of a trial Magistrate to in SABRAH v R{1964-66) ALR SL! AS (1957-60) ALR SL 187 at 190 do so was also emphasised in THOM ‘the Court of Appeal in KHAZALT v LL26-35, The point was also 1K0R Oia 16-17. Allof these cases THE STATE [1974-82] SLBALR 5 at penne ty the Court of Criminal restate the position of English Low - vip Rep BI. See also the case of Appeal in BASKERVELLE (1916) 12 0° 007 22. rt follows therefore, TALLOH v R [1964-080 ALR St 206A. uk

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.