S v JOHN MANOR SESAY (001) [2007] SLHC 43 (24 May 2007);



Couns e l:

A.J.M. Bockarie Esq for the State Legal Aid Board for the Acc use d


  1. The accused person was charged on a 1 Count indictment dated the 9th day of June 2015 for the offence of murder contrary to law. The Prosecution's case is that the accused John Manor Sesay, on the 28th day of September 2014 murdered David Ka rgbo . The matte r was first mentioned by this Court on the 3rd day of September 2015. On the 6 th day of November 2015, by an application made by the Prosecutor pursuant to Section 148(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 32 of 1965, hereinafter referred to as the CPA 1965, the indictment hereinbefore referred was amended for the Statement of Offence to read 'Manslaughter' instead of 'Murder'. On the 13th day of November 2015, by an application made by the Prosecutor pursuant to Section 144(2) CPA 1965 as repealed and replaced by Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act No. 11 of 1981, it was ordered that the accused be tried by Judge alone instead of by Judge and jury.


  1. I am mindful of the fact that an accused is entitled to an acquittal if there is  no evidence direct or circumsta ntial, establishing his guilt. I have cautioned myself that all doubts must be resolved in favour of the accused person. I shall now proceed to evaluate the law and evidence before me.


  1. I thank the Prosecutor for prosecuting this matter and for submitting a final address on behalf of the State on Thursday, 18th March 2017. I also thank Mrs. Cheryl Sembie, who on behalf of the Legal Aid Board defended the accused and who submitted a final address on behalf of the accused only yesterday, the 23rd day of May 2017. Even though I read and took into consideration all the contents of both addresses, I take this opportunity to urge especially defence Counsel again to treat with seriousness the case of litigants who solicit the services of the Legal Aid Board because they could not afford the services of private Practitioners.


2.The law

  1. The actus reus of manslaughter is unlawfully killing of a human being under the Q u ee n's peace. The actus reus of constructive manslaughter also requires

proof that the killing was caused by an unlawful and dangerous act. The actus reus of manslaughter by gross negligence (another form of involuntary manslaughter) also requires proof that the accused's conduct fell so far  beyond the standard to be expected of a reasonable person as to be judged crimina l.


  1. Before any question of the accused person's liability for manslaughter can arise, it must be established that he killed a 'reasonable creature'. A 'reasonable creature' according to Brooke, J, means a person (i.e., a human being) however deformed or disabled.1


  1. Any human being can be the victim of manslaughter with the exception of persons who are not 'unde r the Queen's peace', i.e., alien enemies killed in the actual heat and exercise of war and perhaps rebels who are at the time actually engaged in hostile operations against the State. For Sierra Le one, the words 'under the Queen's peace' would, pursuant to the Section 9 of the In terp retat ion Act of 1961 as replaced by Section 11 of the Inter preta tion Act of 1971 read, 'under the President's peace.'


  1. Ma ns laughter may be punishable even if the dea th is the outcome of an omission to act, rather than a positive act, provided the omission consists of a failure to perform a duty to act recognized by the criminal law. Proving the necessary intent in such a case is not easy. At common law, the death with which it was sought to charge the accused must be shown to have occurred within  a  year and a day of the infliction of the injury by which it is alleged to have been caused.2


  1. The killing of another is unlawful unless it falls within one of the following categories of lawful homicide:


  1. Public of private defence, where the accused kills by using a reasona ble force in self defence in prevention of a crime or in certain other similar situations.
  2. Misadvent ure-death is caused by misadventure where it results, by an accident not involving gross negligence, from the doing of a lawful act. Eg, where death results from a lawful act done in the course of lawful job.


  1. To secure a conviction on a charge of manslaughter by killing by an unlawful and dangerous act, the Prosecution must prove:


  1. The commission of an unlawful act by the accused.
  2. That, that act was dangerous in the sense that it was likely to cause har m to another.





1 Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 QB 587 at 621

2 Coke 3 Ins titutes 47; Dyson (1908) 2KB 454, CCA; Inner West London Coro  n e r, exp De Luca (1 998) QB 249, DC.


  1. That the unlawful and dangerous act caused death.


  1. The Prosecutor has divided manslaughter into voluntary and involuntary

manslaughter  and  has  limited  his address  to  involuntary  manslaug  t_er                                                                                                           i                                                                                                       the

instant case which according to paragraph 2468 at page 907 of the 36 ed1t1on of Archbold is defined as 'where a man doing certain kinds of unlawful and dangerous acts not amounting to felony by accidental kills another or where a man, by culpable neglect of duty imposed upon him, is the cause of death of another'.

  1. An act is never criminally unlawful in itself. One of the things which is required to render an act criminally unlawful is that it should occur in those circumstances and/or lead to those consequences prescribed by  law  as constituting the actus reus of an offence. The Court of Appeal held in Dias 3 that 'in the present context, unlawful means that the act has to be a  criminal  offence'. This matter has been put beyond doubt by the House of Lords  in  Kennedy (No.2)4 where Lord Bingham, giving the opinion of the House said that: "To establish  the crime of unlawful act  of manslaughter  it must be shown       (1) that

the defendant committed an unlawfu l act; (2) that such unlawful act was  a crime.


  1. Must the accused have the mens rea for the offence whose actus reus he has committed? The fact that the accused has committed the actus reus of an offence does not in itself make his act criminally unlawful. It only does so if the accused has the mens rea required for that offence.


  1. In DPP v Newbury5 two teenage boys pushed part of a paving stone off a railway bridge as a train approached.  The stone came  through  the  window of  the cab and killed the gua rd. The House of Lords, upholding the boys' conviction of manslaughter, held that a defendant  is  guilty of  manslaughter  if  it  is  proved  that he intentionally did an act  which  was  unlawful  and  dangerous.  Lord  Salmond, with the other law lords concurring, held that a conviction for constructive manslaughter required proof  of  mens rea  but  that, as  manslaughter  was  a  crime of 'basic' as opposed to 'specific' intention, the necessary mens rea was simply 'an intention to do the act which  constit utes  the  crime'. Lord  Edmund  Davies stated that 'what is required is no more  than  the  intentional  committing  of  an  unlawful act of the designated type or nature'. InM itche/16 it was held that for constru ctive manslaughter 'there must be an act which is unlawful' and 'the act  must  be intentional'.


Now that I have dealt with the legal requirement for the proof of manslaughter, I shall proceed to evaluate the testimony and evidence before the Court.









3 (2001) EWCA Crim 2986 p 9.

4 (2007) UKHL 38 p 7.

s (1977) AC 500, HL.

6 (1983) QB, 741, CA.


5.Evidence analys is

  1. PWl was Detective Police Constable 10266, Abu Kanu. He recognized the

accused as someone who was brought into police custody at the Criminal Investigations Department at the Ross Road Police Station on the 27th day of September 2014, on a charge of shooting with intent to murder. The matter being assigned to him for investigation, PWl issued the complainant, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Senesi, a medical request form in duplicate on behalf of the deceased, David Karg bo, for examination and treatment.


  1. Together  with  Woman    Detective Constable 8500 Turay Y. PWl interviewed the accused. He said the accused was first cautioned then questioned by Detective Constable 8500 Turay Y in Krio and that the accused made his responses in Krio which he recorded in English. He told the Court that at the conclusion of the interviews, the accused person's statement was read over and explained to him in Krio wh ich he admitted to be true and correct by signing same in his own hand writing. No objection ra ised, PWl tendered the accused person's voluntary caution statement (VCS) as Exhibit Al -1 2. He said the matter was thereafter transferred to the CID Head Quarters for further investigation.


  1. In answfr to cross-examination, PWl told the Court that he did not visit the scene of crime and that immediately after his interview, the matter was transferred to the CID HQ for further investigation.


  1. PW2 was Charles Bangalie who told the Court that he does not personally know the deceased David Kargbo but that he recognized the accused. He said on the 28th day of September  2014,  whilst in  bed  between 11:00pm and 12:30am, he heard a loud sound like a big stone thrown at a kiosk. He went out of his home with a torch light to find out what the sound was about. He then saw the accused standing by a motor bike with a gun in his hand. The accused told him upon his enquiry that he had shot a thief. He could not locate the said thief in the direction pointed him by the accused so he went back home.


  1. PW2 told the Court that he later heard, whilst in his room, voices saying the person who was shot had been seen so he went out of his house again onto the new road at Allen Town. He saw two police officers pointing up from where  these police officers said the deceased had jumped. This piece of information is very vital to the accused testimony as I recall it and I shall make my comment in that respect later when l deal with the testimony of the accused.


  1. PW2 told the Court that he saw the deceased sitted on the ground; that he asked him what the problem was and that the deceased told him he was not a thief and gave his address at Allen Town. The deceased asked PW2 to call his neighbours but PW2 hadn't a phone on him. He said he saw a wound on the chest of the deceased where he was shot. He left the deceased sitted on the ground as he left the scene.


  1. In answer to questions put to him in cross-examination, PW2 reiterated what he said in chief and that he saw the accused playing with his gun. He could


not tell whether the accused was under the influence of alcohol. I must state that it is not the case of the accused that he was under the influence of alcohol or any drug when the fatal shot was made on that fateful day. I therefore wonder why Def ence Counsel chose that line of cross-exa mination . He said the shooting happened on the old road, Allen Town. I must remind myself that the evidence is that the shooting happened on the old road but that the victim, now deceased was found on the new road, supposedly having left the area where he was shot. He told the Court that hehasnever heard about armed robbers in the area where he lives, which is, where the incident took place. As said, I shall relate the suggestion of the deceased being a thief to the testimony of the accused.


  1. PW3 was Amadu Ka mara. He told the Court that he lives in the same area as the accused at Allen Town and that he did not know the deceased. He said on the 28th day of September 2014, he heard a loud sound outside his house and the words 'thief thief'. He said he heard a gun shot but stayed in his kiosk. He said when he heard his neighbour's voice, i.e., PW2 he went out of his kiosk.


  1. PW3 said he then saw the accuse d walking towards him and said that he was, attacked by a thief and that no one went to his rescue. He said the accused had no clothes on and had bites on his body. That must have been his observation but there is nothing in evidence to tell where or how the accused got the bites referred to by PW3. Even the accused has not said anything about bites in his testimony before this Court in addition to which PW3 did not say how he could have seen bites at the back of the accused at that hour of the night.


  1. PW3 told the Court that later, he heard voices on the main road calling for help. He said he called the accused on his phone and told him about the call for help he heard from the highway. Police Officers went to the scene. He made a statemen t at th e Ross Road police station.


  1. In answer to cross examination, PW3 told the  Court  that the area  where the incident took place is a bad ar ea for criminal activities. He said he cannot tell whether the accused was drunk at the time the  incident happened. I have made  my comment in respect of that line of cross-exa mina tion. He said he cannot tell whether it was the accused who killed the victim. Well, there is no doubt that the accused died from at least a bullet from a gun in the hands of the accused.


  1. PW4 was Detective Inspector of Police, Issa Saio Dumbuya who is the Crime Scene Officer at the CID HQ, Freetown. He said while on duty on the 7th day of October 2014, Detective Sergeant 1513 Kabba M.D requested that he helps with the postmortem examination by the Government Pathologist at the Connaught Hospital on the remains of David Kargbo formally of Berry Drive, Upper Allen Town. He said himself and Detective Sergeant 1513 Kabba M.D were present when the Pathologist conducted  the  postmortem  on the said 7th October  2014. He took photographs during the postmortem examination  which he  developed and printed into pictures which he compiled into 11 photographs  of  the  deceased. No objection raised by Counsel for the accused, the said photos were tendered as Exhibit 81-7.


  1. In answer to questions put in cross examination, PW4 told the Court that he used a 35 millimeter focus digital camera to take snap shots of the deceased during the postmortem exercise. He said the date on Exhibit  B1-7  was  the correct date on which the photos were taken. He  said  the  deceased  was identified by one of his relatives to the Pathologist. He said the accused was not present when he took the photos. Was Counsel suggesting that Exhibit B1-7 reflected the wrong person with whom the accused had an interaction on that fateful night? I find no reasoning in Counsel's method of cross-examination .


  1. PWS was Memunatu Jalloh who identified the deceased as her husband of 13 years, who did business of running a bar and being a generator mecha nic. She said the deceased use to have an ongoing construction work and another home at Allen Town and that he was at his bar till 10:00pm on the night he was . She told the Court that on the 28th day of September 2014 at about 1:00pm, not having heard from her husband, she called on his phone but the phone was not on. At about 2:00pm, she sent someone named Ratty to go check what was happening with her husband at Allen Town. Ratty returned at about 5:00 pm and told her that someone was shot over night; she went to the Ross Road Police Station with her husband's picture in hand which she showed to Police Officer Kandeh who confirmed to her that her husband was shot overnight and taken to the Emergency Hospital. She was still at the police station when she received a message that her husband passed from the gun shot wounds. PWS's test imony was unshaken under cross-examination.


  1. PW6 was Detective Police Officer, Mohamed Dauda Kabbah. He told the Court that whilst he was on duty at the CID HQ on the 29th day of September 2014, the following were handed over to him by a personnel from the Ross Road Police Division for further investigation:


  1. Case an-d enquiry file of a murder allegation.
  2. One black Block 17 pistol and a magazine conta ining 16 rounds of ammunition.
  3. One black handle kitchen knife.
  4. One half length iron rod.
  5. One blue and grey colo ured wind braker jacket.
  6. The accused.


  1. He told the Court that on that same day, that is 29th day of September 2014, the accused led a tea m of detectives including himself and a Scene of Crime Officer, Serg ean t 7931 Macmillan G.S, Assistant Superintendent of Police, John k. Sesay, to the scene of crime at Ojuku junction, Old Road . At the scene of crime, the accused explained to the team of detectives his position when the deceased appeared before him. He sa id the accused told the team that he  introduced himself to the victim as an OSD Office r; that after the said introduction, the deceased proceeded to try and take the accused person's  pistol.  A  struggle ensued between the accused and the deceased and  the  accused  was  over powered by the deceased. How convenient a story, that an ordinary citizen, a civilian, will approach an OSD Officer and attempt to take a pistol from that Officer when that ordinary citizen and civilian will have no knowledge on the use


of a weapon. I find this very insulting to my logic and legal mind. We will get to see how that explanation does not tie with the evidence before this Court. PW6 told the Court that according to the accused, he then pulled his pistol and  gave  the deceased one gun shot. It can be seen that there is no story of the accused being a thief or who tried to jump over or from a wall.


  1. PW6 continued his narration of what was said to the team of detectives when the incident was fresh on the mind of the accused. The accused had said that his pistol was attached to his trousers. I haven't commented on the accused person's testimony but his evidence, which I do not believe, is that his pistol was in his blue and grey wind braker/jacket pocket and not attached to his trousers as he in fact told the police during investigations when the incident was very fresh on his mind. The accused then made a report to the Mayemi Police post about the incident.


  1. PW6 told the Court that on the 3rd day of October 2014, together with Detective Sergeant 7931, Macmillan G.S, he contemporaneously interviewed the accused in Krio, having cautioned him in Krio. He said the accused responded to questions put to him in Krio which was recorded in English by Detective Sergeant 7931 Macmillan G.S. PW6 told the Court that at the conclusion of the interview, the statement was read over and explained to the accused, which content he confirmed to be true and correct and affixing his right hand thumb print. There being no objection raised by Counsel for the accused, the statement was tendered as Exhibit Ll-14 and a charge statement as Exhibit Ml-2. Both the Voluntary Caution Statement and Charge Statement of the accused were read out in open Court.


  1. In answer to questions put in cross-examination, PW6 told the Court that when he visited the crime scene he did not find anything of police interest. He said he handed over the pistol and knife hereinbefore referred to the Exhibit Clerk for preservation. He did not recall seeing blood stains on the knife. He denied seeing any wounds on the back of the accused. He said though he observed a bite at the back of the accused he cannot recall the accused telling him he was stabbed in the back by the deceased. This observation is again crucial to the testimony of the accused that he sustained injuries to his back from the deceased. This witness has no reason to lie to the Court. If it were anything, he will protect the accused who himse lf at the time of the incident was his colleague of the Sierra Leone Police. I-le said the accused claimed the pistol but no one made claim to the knife and that finger print experts were not used to determine the accused person's finger print on the exhibits. Well, I must remind Defence Counsel that the accused has not denied that he owns the pistol concerned or that it was in his possession so that line of cross-examination is totally irrelevant.


  1. With delays in tendering the exhibits in respect of the matter herein and in the interest of justice, the accused was granted bail on the 4th day of May 201 6.


  1. PW7 was Dr. Simeon Owizz Koroma who identified himself as the Chief Consultant Forensic Pa thologist with the Sierra Leone Police and Head of Scientific Unit, Sierra Leone Police. He told the Court that on the 7th day of


October 2014, he caused an autopsy to be performed on the remains of the deceased, David Kargbo. He said he examined the body of the deceased internally and externally after which he reduced his findings into a postmortem report. No objection raised by Counsel for the accused, an original copy of the said Report was tendered as Exhibit Cl-5. He tendered a medical certificate of the cause of death as Exhibit D, no objection being raised by Counsel for the accused. He said the distance in the instant case between the accused and the deceased when he was shot was about 20 feet which he described as a short distance. He said there was an entry and exit of the bullet in this case.


  1. In cross-examination, Or. Koroma told the Court that the main cause of death was acute haemoragic shock due to gun shot. On suggestion that the deceased may have survived had he been taken to a sophisticated hospital than the Emergency Hos pital, PW7 told the Court that the deceased would have died anyway because the injuries he sustained were too much. He said he would have known if the deceased was involved in a struggle before his death by way of scratch wounds to his body of which he told the Court there was none. Rather, the instant case was a clea n gun shot wound, which caused the death of the deceased, David Kargbo.


  1. PW8 was Detective Police Sergeant 5630, Joseph Boima Lahai. He told the Court that on the 30th day of September 2014, whilst he was on duty at the CID HQ, Detective Sergeant 1513, Mohamed Kabba of the Homicide Dep a rtme nt CID handed over to him certain exhibits including:


  1. Iron Road.
  2. A black handled knife.
  3. Wind braker.
  4. Glut 17 Ostral pistol with 16 rounds of live ammunition in its magazine.


  1. He said he entered the said exhibits in the Register Court Book which since the remained in police custody. He said on the 15 th day of Jan uary 2015, he tendered the above listed exhibits to at Magistrate Court No. 2 and RC No. 143/2014. These exhibits bein g in the custody of the Court since their being tendered at the Magistrate Court were identified and tendered by PW8  and marked as follows:


  1. Exhibit E-Iron rod
  2. Exhibit F-Black handled kitchen knife.
  3. Exhibit G-Ostral pistol.
  4. Exhibit Hl-16-16 rounds live ammunitio n.
  5. Exhibit }-Magazine of the sai d Ostral pistol.
  6. Exhibit K Wind braker.


  1. In answer to cross-examina tion, PW8 told the Court that the Exhibits E-K were tendered to him by Sergeant Kabba and that he does  not  know  where Kabba got them from. He barely received them as Exhibits. Well, I must point out that the accused has not denied anything relating to the said exhibits. Of


importance, he identified  Exhibits  G, H, J and    K that is the pistol, 16 rounds live ammunition, the magazine to the pistol and the wind braker.


  1. The Prosecution closed the case on behalf of the State on the 2nd day of December 2016 and tender ed, from the Bar the Committal Certificate of the accused person which was marked as Nl-2. The accused person was then put to his election in compliance with Section 194(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 32 of 1965 to wit:


  1. Make an unsworn statement from the dock and not be subjected to cross­ examination;
  2. Make a sworn statement and be subjected to cross-examination and call


  1. Rely on statement made to the police.


The accused person chose to testify on oath and call witnesses.


  1. The accused entered his defence on the 8th day of February 2017 as DWl. He said on the 27th day of Se ptember 2014, as he left his office at Jui Arms Store for his home, he had a brakedown with his motor bike at about 12:30am. He said he was fixing his motor bike when he felt someone holding onto him from his back. He asked the person who that was but the person failed to identify himself. In his VCS, Exhibit Ll-14 dated 3rd day of October 2014 at page 2, the accused told the police that as he stopped at the Rese r vation View Drive junction to change the gear of his motor bike so as to enable him climb the hill, he saw a bright light pointing directly at him; he enquired who it was, on two separate occasions. The deceased answered 'na me', that is 'it is me' but the accused said he did not recognize the voice. In Exhibi t Al-12 at page 4 thereof, the accused said as follows: "On my way goin g alo ng a place called Corner Kick, I saw a bright object coming towards me. I halted him but he did not stop. The place was completely dark and I identified myself as a police officer, ... he rushed at me at once and we went on struggling '


  1. In answer to question s put to him in cross-examination, the accused confirms he is an OSD Officer enti tled to carry arms and trained in the use of the type of pistol he held on that fateful night. He agreed, that as provided by the 'Green Card Guidance' of wh ic h he said he is aware, fire arms must always be in a safe mode. He sa id the pis tol he held on that day had an internal safety mode. There being no objection by Counsel for the accused, he tendered the Green Card Guidance for operating of fire arms as Exhibit 0. He told the Court that on that fateful day, he had his pis tol stoc k to his trousers, which confirms the accused person's testimony in Exhibit Ll-14 and indeed as stated by Defence Counsel in the final address on behalf of the accused.


  1. In further cross-exam i nation on the 29th day of  March  2017, the  accused told the Court that his pis to l which blew the  fatal  shot was in his grey and  blue wind braker jacket as in Exh ibit I<. In his  testimony  before  this Court on  the  8th day of February 2017 and in his statement to the police, the accused had


maintained his pistol was stock to his trousers. He identified Exhibit G, the pistol he referred to throughout his testimony.


  1. The accused agreed with the Prosecutor that Exhibit G ha s no external safety button and that the safety button is in-built; he agreed the pistol will not discharge until the trigger is released. He referred to the space on the pistol for finger insertion and told the Court that the pistol has space for only one finger. He told the Court that after he was stabbed by the deceased, he took out his pistol from his wind braker and that the deceased held on to part of his pistol grip, that is under where the finger should be inserted; they struggled and the trigger went off. I have already made my comment in respect of there being no evidence not even by way of a medical report that the accusedwas stabbed in the back so I will discounte nance that line of defence .


  1. The evidence that the accused saw a bright light pointing at him must mean that the object was before him and not behind him. This is supported by his free nar ra tive at page 8 of his VCS when he was asked, '... you were adjusting your gear position on the motor bike you we re using ADM 881, the now deceased appeared before you and asked 'who are you'. The accused then told the police that the deceased held onto his throat so he was unable to shout for help. This piece of evidence is at comple te varia nce with what the accused said to the Court in testimony that, he felt someone who failed to identify  himself, holding onto him from his back.


  1. He tried to protect his pist o l on his side. He got into a struggle with the deceased who had a knife in his hand; the deceased stabbed the accused in his back as they contin ued the st ruggle. In his VCS, he told the police that he noticed that the deceased had a kn ife and that the deceased dropped the knife He said it was duri ng the struggle that his pistol went off and hit the deceased who ran down the road as he, the accuse d went up the road. Here is a trained armed officer whose pistol went off and injured a civilian; if indeed the deceased was a thief who attacked him as the accused would want this Court to believe, I would expect the accused to chase the so called thief, take him to the police station and make a report in complia nc e with the law .


  1. He, the accused told PW2 that he had shot a thief. At page 10 of Exhibit A1-12, the accused confessed he cannot say for certain that the deceased was an armed robber. He said "To be very honest ... for the fact that he did not take my instructions and also armed wi th an object which resembles a knife, I believed he was an armed robber". I wonde r what those inst ructions were that never came out in evidence from the accused. There is nothing in evidence to show that the accused was injured by th e decea sed with a knife nor was there any proof bite woun ds on him. I ca nnot say Lha t the so called knife was the pro per ty of the deceased. One would have expected that the accused will call his sister, Baby May Sesay whom  he said  he s h,>wed his injured  body to tes tify on his behalf, at least to that effec t. There is noth i ng in evidence to show any blood stained knife.


  1. At page 9 of Exhibit Ll - l •'l-, the   accused told the police that before he was held by the deceased, the pis tol was in safety mode and that it was during the





struggle that he got the pistol ready for use in self defence. He said he shot the deceased some two to three inches away on his right chest under his breast. He agreed with the police in Exhibit Ll0 that he was conscious at the  time  he released the gun shot and that he was relieved that one bullet had  been  let  out. He then put the pistol again in a safety mode after its use.


  1. The testimony of the State Pathologist, Dr. Owizz Koroma is that the distance between the accused and the deceased when the fatal shot was made was about 20 feet. Though the Pathologist described that distance as a short distance, it certainly does not support the accused person's testimony that his pistol went off during a struggle with the deceased. My understanding of the Pathologist's testimony is that the accused shot the deceased from a distance of about 20 feet.


  1. The accused told the Court that he was entitled to carry firearms. I must state for the understanding of the accused that his entitlement to carry firearms does not give him the power to take the life of another human being who is protected by the law. We all have a right to life as provided for under the fundamental human rights as enshrined in Chapter 3 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone and indeed by international instruments like the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the Int ernational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the State, which said right cannot be taken arbitrarily. The deceased, the late Mr. David Kargbo is no exception to the enjoyment to the right to life.


  1. It is my holding that the killing of the deceased, David Kargbo, a creature in being and under the President's peace, by the accused was not caused  by misadven tur e as the evidence has shown. I hold that the accused, John Manor Sesay, intentionally committed an unlawful and criminal act which  was dangerous in so far as it was likely to cause harm to the deceased and which said unlawful and dangerous act did in fact cause the death of the deceased, David Kargbo.


  1. On the strength of the above analysis and applicable law, I find the accused person, John Manor Sesay guilty of the offence of manslaughter as charged on the amended indictment dated the 9th day of June 2015.