REX v. VAND I GBOU

The following joint judgment was delivered :-

KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST AND LANE, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Chief Justice of Sierra Leone convicting the three appellants of the murder of a woman Jassa some four years ago. On one only of the grounds of appeal which were put before us did we think it necessary to call upon Counsel for the Crown; it was to the effect that the trial of appellants Siaffa Kawonie (No.3) and Vandi Gbou (N o. 1) was irregular because their Counsel was deprived of the last word, neither of these appellants having called any witnesses. We consider that there is no merit in this argument because where as in this case one Counsel appeared for all three accused who were jointly indicted and where he called evidence for the defence, it is impossible to say that he called that evidence for one accused only and not for them all. Further in this case the defence witness Morna Jonni gave evidence to show that the case for the prosecution was a trumped-up story which amounted to a conspiracy against all the accused.

He must therefore be considered a witness for all the accused.

It has be-en said in Rex v. Burns and others 16 Cox. p. 195 that each case must be judged by its special circumstances. We think that the right course was adopted here of giving the Crown the final word.

A case such as this can be differentiated from R. v. Burns (already cited) where a separate Counsel appeared for each accused and where the Counsel for the prisoners who called no witnesses had the right to address the jury last.

Of the other grounds, we think that the learned trial Judge was justified in putting it to the Assessors that the accused may have taken part in the crime as members of a Secret Society. In point of fact there is no finding by the Judge on this particular point.

His finding was· that the 3 appellants were principals in the second degree.

We do not think that there is any substance in the contention that the prosecution tailed to establish common purpose.

As regards the argument that there was misdirection as to 'the effect of the alibi which was sought to be proved by appellant Musa, we think that this was adequately dealt with in his summing up by the learned trial Judge.

His finding was that he did not believe it, and we see no reason to differ from this view.

Another point raised for the appellants was that there was misdirection as to the corroboration of the two prosecution