Essay
The received English criminal law
'Sierra Leone criminal law is still largely English law of the nineteenth century.' Discuss.
issue
How far the substantive criminal law depends on received English law, and how far it has been reformed.
rule
Courts Act 1965, s.74; Offences Against the Person Act 1861; Larceny Act 1916; Treason and State Offences Act 1963; Sexual Offences Act 2012; Public Order (Amendment) Act 2020; Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 2021; Criminal Procedure Act 2024.
application
Section 74 brings in the common law and statutes of general application in force on 1 January 1880, so homicide, assault and larceny still rest on the 1861 and 1916 Acts, which England has itself replaced. Later English reforms such as the Homicide Act 1957 and the Theft Act 1968 are not part of the law, so diminished responsibility is unavailable. But important areas are now local: treason under the 1963 Act (Lansana), sexual offences under the 2012 Act, corruption under the 2008 Act, and procedure under the 2024 Act. The death penalty and criminal libel have been abolished.
conclusion
The statement is broadly true of offences against the person and property, but no longer true of treason, sexual offences, corruption, sentencing and procedure. Codification remains the unfinished task.
Essay
Provocation in Sierra Leone
Explain the law of provocation in Sierra Leone and the role of judge and jury.
issue
When provocation reduces murder to manslaughter and who decides.
rule
R v Duffy; Rex v Sard; Amara v Reginam; Koiju v Reginam; Homicide Act 1957 not received.
application
Provocation requires a sudden and temporary loss of self-control caused by provocative conduct, such that a reasonable person would also have lost control. The prosecution must disprove it once raised. Rex v Sard requires the judge to leave it to the jury whenever the evidence raises it, even if the defence does not. Because the Homicide Act 1957 does not apply, words alone and the reasonable-person test follow the older common law, and diminished responsibility is unavailable.
conclusion
Provocation is a partial defence for the jury, with the judge bound to leave it where there is evidence.
Problem
The stadium fight
At a football match A stabs V. B, standing by, shouts 'stab him again'. C, who had earlier urged A to 'deal with' V but stayed at home, hears of it and hides A. V dies. Discuss the liability of A, B and C.
issue
The liability of the principal, an encourager at the scene, and one who counselled and later helped.
rule
Walker v R; Turay v R; Kargbo v R; accessory before and after the fact.
application
A is a principal in the first degree, guilty of murder if he had malice aforethought. B's words encouraged A with knowledge of his intent; following Walker v R he is a principal in the second degree and guilty of murder. C was absent, so if his words counselled or procured the killing he is an accessory before the fact (Kargbo v R), and by hiding A knowing of the felony he is also an accessory after the fact.
conclusion
A and B are guilty of murder; C is liable as an accessory before and after the fact, subject to proof that his earlier words counselled the killing.
Problem
The chief and the boards
A Paramount Chief takes timber from a relative's yard, believing customary law entitles him to it. A clerk enters a fictitious name on the chiefdom payroll and draws the pay. Advise.
issue
Claim of right in larceny; false accounting.
rule
Larceny Act 1916, s.1; Attorney-General v Kamara; Falsification of Accounts Act 1875; Nottidge v Reginam; Venn v The State.
application
If the chief honestly believed he had a legal right to the timber, even unreasonably, he lacks the dishonesty for larceny (Attorney-General v Kamara). A merely moral claim would not be enough. The clerk made a false entry with intent to defraud and is guilty of false accounting even without proof of loss (Nottidge). If the payroll belongs to the State, property may be laid in the State (Venn).
conclusion
The chief is likely to be acquitted if his belief was honest; the clerk is guilty of false accounting.
Essay
Lansana and the law of treason
Assess the importance of Lansana and Eleven Others v Reginam for the law of treason in Sierra Leone.
issue
What Lansana decided and its continuing authority.
rule
Treason and State Offences Act 1963, ss.1(2), 3, 4; Lansana; Juxon-Smith v The State; State v Forna.
application
The case arose from the 1967 seizure of power. The Court of Appeal held that 'prepares' and 'endeavours' are separate offences, so joining them in one count was duplicitous, and that the Attorney-General's consent under s.1(2) is a condition precedent that must be valid and given with knowledge of the facts. It also treated conspiracy as an overt act of preparing. It was applied in Juxon-Smith and the later treason trials. Treason now carries life imprisonment.
conclusion
Lansana remains the foundation of Sierra Leone treason law, combining substantive and procedural rules.
Problem
The diamond pan
Fatu, a mine supervisor, often carries ore samples home for testing. One night she drives off with a bag of concentrates and is stopped at the gate. She is charged with attempted larceny. Advise.
issue
Whether her act is sufficiently proximate and unequivocal to be an attempt.
rule
Cope v Reginam; R v Robinson.
application
An attempt requires an act immediately connected with the offence that cannot reasonably be regarded as having any other purpose. Like the superintendent in Cope, Fatu routinely took samples, so driving off with them is consistent with her duties. Unless there is other evidence of intent to steal (for instance, concealment or false statements), her act is equivocal.
conclusion
On these facts a conviction for attempted larceny is unlikely to stand.
Problem
The fight over the cup
Sorie is knocked down by his brother, who sits on him and hits him. Sorie grabs a machete and kills him. Sorie had been drinking heavily. Advise on possible defences.
issue
Self-defence, intoxication and provocation.
rule
Kargbo v Reginam; Wreh v Regem; DPP v Beard; Rex v Sard.
application
Sorie was under an immediate attack and had no duty to retreat (Kargbo). If the force was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them, he is not guilty; the prosecution must disprove self-defence once raised. If the force was excessive, provocation must still be left to the jury (Sard). If he was so drunk he could not form intent to kill or cause GBH, murder is reduced to manslaughter (Wreh; Beard).
conclusion
Self-defence may lead to acquittal; otherwise provocation or intoxication may reduce the offence to manslaughter.
Essay
Contempt and free expression
Discuss the law of criminal contempt in Sierra Leone and its relationship with press freedom after 2020.
issue
The elements and procedure of contempt and how it fits with the repeal of criminal libel.
rule
Regina v Shekpendeh; Regina v Manni; Regina v Shamel; Constitution, s.25; Public Order (Amendment) Act 2020.
application
Criminal contempt is conduct tending to prejudice the administration of justice and needs no mens rea (Shekpendeh; Manni). It is punished by the superior courts under their inherent jurisdiction, by writ of attachment on affidavit evidence. The 2020 repeal of Part V of the Public Order Act removed criminal and seditious libel, but contempt remains a common law offence, so the press must still avoid prejudicing pending trials.
conclusion
Contempt survives as a strict common law offence; it should be used sparingly to respect section 25.
