The 1967 Sierra Leone Court of Appeal case, Kargbo, Kargbo and Kamara v. Reginam (1967-68 ALR S.L. 146), stands as a critical precedent on two fundamental principles of criminal law: the non-negotiable burden of proof on the prosecution and the strict legal distinction between a principal offender and an accessory before the fact.
The court’s decision to quash three manslaughter convictions highlighted severe misdirections by the trial judge, reinforcing the “golden thread” of Commonwealth law that an accused is innocent until proven guilty.
Case Background and Initial Trial
The case involved three appellants (Santigie Kargbo, Sorie Kargbo, and Fasineh Kamara) who invited a young boy, Abdul Kamara, to travel with them. Shortly after they arrived at their destination, the boy disappeared. His body was later found with severe head injuries, which were determined to be the cause of death.
In the Supreme Court, Santigie Kargbo and Fasineh Kamara were charged with murder, while Sorie Kargbo was charged with being an accessory before the fact to the same murder.
Despite the serious charges and the appellants’ denial of any knowledge of the boy’s death, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of manslaughter for all three men. Each was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Key Legal Errors and Grounds for Appeal
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions, finding that the trial judge had made several fundamental errors in law, particularly in his summing-up to the jury.
1. Reversing the Burden of Proof
The most significant error was the trial judge’s failure to properly direct the jury on the burden of proof. Citing the landmark case Woolmington v. D.P.P. ([1935] A.C. 462), the Court of Appeal reiterated the “one golden thread” of English criminal law:
“…it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt… No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law…”
The trial judge, however, told the jury that since the three accused arrived with the boy and the boy disappeared, “the three accused must account for him.” This direction effectively reversed the burden of proof, placing an onus on the appellants to prove their innocence rather than on the prosecution to prove their guilt.
2. Confusing “Accessory Before the Fact” with “Principal”
The second appellant, Sorie Kargbo, was specifically indicted as an accessory before the fact. The law defines an accessory before the fact as someone who counsels or procures the commission of a felony but is absent when the crime is committed.
The trial judge, misinterpreting the case of R. v. Brown (1878), incorrectly directed the jury that they could convict an accessory as a principal. The Court of Appeal clarified that these are mutually exclusive charges. If a person is charged as an accessory but is proven to be a principal (i.e., present at the crime), they cannot be convicted of either charge on that indictment and must be acquitted.
3. No Evidence for a Manslaughter Verdict
The Court of Appeal found “no scintilla of evidence suggestive of manslaughter.” The evidence pointed to a case of murder (due to the severe head injuries) or a complete acquittal if the prosecution could not link the appellants to the killing. By leaving the option of manslaughter to the jury, the trial judge “misdirected” them on a matter for which there was no factual basis in the evidence presented.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
Based on these profound misdirections—particularly the failure to instruct on the burden of proof, which the court called a “cardinal principle”—the Court of Appeal held that the three accused were wrongly convicted.
The appeal was allowed, the sentences were quashed, and a verdict of “not guilty” was ordered to be entered on the record for all three appellants.
Why Kargbo v. Reginam Matters
This case serves as a powerful judicial reminder of the fundamental rights of an accused. It reinforces that a conviction cannot stand, even in the face of suspicious circumstances, if the core principles of law are violated during the trial. It underscores that the burden of proof is absolute and can never be shifted to the accused, and that clear legal distinctions, such as that between an accessory and a principal, must be correctly explained to a jury.
Download Below