Appeal Court1 December, 1936.
Appeal from Conviction in
Supreme Court.
.
Convictions for
Sedition-Admissibility or
otherwise of certain evidence of
Secretary for Native Affairs.
Held: Secretary for Native
Affairs is an expert witness in
respect of reaction of people to
any publication and his evidence
on that point admissible, but
his opinion of an article and
its object not admissible.
Wrongful admission of evidence
of minor importance insufficient
to quash convictions.
Appeal dismissed.
There is no need to set out the
facts. Appellant in person.
The Attorney-General
(with him
Howe)
for the Crown.
The following judgment was
delivered ;-
KINGDON, C.]., NIGERIA.
In this case it is sufficient to
say that the words complained of
are obviously seditious and that
under each count all the
elements going to make up the
offence were duly proved.
The only possible exception that
can be taken to the conduct of
the trial is the admission of
this evidence given by Mr.
Thomas :-
" I consider the article a
pretty vicious article written
with the object of creating ill
will between African and
European. Writer had no use for
European, the British
Government, or the Gold Coast
Government."
and the reference to it in the
Chief Justice's summing-up to
the assessors.
Mr. Thomas's opinion of the
article and its object was not
evidence, though his opinion as
to the effect it would have on
the people of the country would
be. Thus we hold that the
evidence of Captain Warrington,
" The local inhabitants (the
mass of the people) believe
every word they see in a paper.
The tendency and effect of that
article would be to create an
opinion hostile to the
Government -and the Bills," was
rightly admitted. Both Mr.
Thomas and Captain Warrington
were expert witnesses in respect
of the reaction of the people to
any publication. As Secretaries
for Native Affairs it is part of
their duty to study this subject
and to give expert advice upon
it. The matter is one peculiarly
within their own professional
knowledge. We regard that small
passage of Mr. Thomas's evidence
which we have held was wrongly
admitted as of only minor
importance and having no
substantial effect on the result
of the trial; certainly not as
sufficient to necessitate the
quashing of the convictions. It
is true that the Chief Justice
referred to it in his
summing-up, but the other
passages of the summing-up show
that he had in mind and put to
the assessors what was the real
issue on the question of whether
the article was seditious or
not, namely was it calculated to
bring the Government of the Gold
Coast into hatred.
