Lanbuk on the Law of Crimes in Sierra Leone: cases
33 cases, each with its facts, the issue, what was held and the principle.
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Dogbowu v R (1950s)Transferred malice: an intent aimed at one victim attaches to the harm actually caused to another.
- Comptroller of Customs v Basma (1920s-30s)Whether a statutory offence is strict depends on the statute's object and wording.Read the full judgment
- Bangura v R (1960s)Negligent treatment does not break the chain unless the original wound is merely the setting in which another cause operates.
- Turay v R (1960s)Presence alone is not aiding and abetting, but presence plus encouragement or shared purpose is (R v Coney; Wilcox v Jeffery).Read the full judgment
- Walker v R (1967-68)Words of encouragement given at the scene, with knowledge of the killer's intent, make the speaker a principal in the second degree.
- John and Four Others v The State (1973)Solicitation plus presence makes a principal; robbery is aggravated where offenders are armed or act together.
- Kargbo v R (accessory before the fact) (1960s)The burden stays on the prosecution; an accessory before the fact must have counselled or procured and been absent.
- Seisay and Siaffa v Reginam (1960s)Malice aforethought requires intent to kill or cause GBH, or knowledge that death or GBH is probable.
- Rex v Sard (1920s-30s)Provocation must be left to the jury whenever the evidence raises it.Read the full judgment
- Kamara v The State (1973)Intent to do grievous bodily harm may be inferred from the nature of the act and its consequences.
- Thullay v The State (1960s)One who merely gives information on which a judicial officer acts does not commit false imprisonment.
- Williams v R (1957-60)Corroboration must be independent evidence that implicates the accused in a material particular (see also George v R, ALR (S.L.) 336 (1968-69)).
- Regina v Manley (pre-1970)The Larceny Act protects possession.
- Attorney-General v Kamara (1960s-70s)A claim of right must be an honest belief in a legal, not merely moral, right.
- Garber v R (1960s)Charges must specify the correct offence under section 17.Read the full judgment
- Marsh and Others v The State (1970-71)Receiving requires guilty knowledge, not mere possession.
- Abdul Mucktarr v R (1967-68)A clear direction on the mental element is essential in receiving cases.
- Tholly v Reginam (pre-1961)A document is false if it purports to be made by someone who did not make it.
- Nottidge v Reginam (1960s)False accounting needs (a) a false entry and (b) intent to defraud.
- Daisy A. Venn v The State (1977)Property and employment may be laid in the State.Read the full judgment
- Dumbar v The State (1971)Whether conduct is insulting and likely to provoke is judged in its context, including the audience.
- Regina v Loshak (1960s)Seditious intention is inferred from the document and its context.
- Conteh v R (1960s)Seditious libel requires words that actually tend to bring the Government or its head into hatred or contempt.Read the full judgment
- Lansana and Eleven Others v Reginam (1970-71)Consent is a condition precedent to prosecution; separate statutory offences must not be joined in one count.
- Bob-Jones v Reginam; Regina v Bob-Jones (1967-68)Subornation needs proof of the perjury; incitement needs corroboration of the incitee.
- Regina v Shekpendeh, ex parte Attorney-General (1958-59)Criminal contempt does not require mens rea.
- Regina v Manni, ex parte Attorney-General (1957-60)The superior courts punish contempt under their inherent jurisdiction, without proof of intent.
- Cope v Reginam (1964-66)An attempt needs an act immediately connected with the offence and having no other reasonable purpose (R v Robinson).
- Mohamed Musa v Reginam (1960s)Incitement requires a communication that reaches the person incited.
- Kargbo v Reginam (self-defence) (1968-69)There is no duty to retreat, though the chance to retreat is relevant to reasonableness.Read the full judgment
- Yankor v Reginam (1950s)Self-defence needs an immediate threat; insanity follows M'Naghten, proved on the balance of probabilities.
- Wreh (or Dee) v Regem (1950s)Intoxication negating specific intent reduces murder to manslaughter.
- Feika v Reginam (1968-69)Directions should deal with the defences the evidence actually raises.