² “The migration of the common law: what is the common law?”—76 L.Q.R. 39, at 46.

³ All the territories in Africa which are or have been under British rule except the Union of S. Africa, Egypt and the Sudan. See Jearey: “The Structure, Composition and Jurisdiction of Courts and Authorities enforcing the Criminal Law in British African Territories”((1960), 9 I.C.L.Q. 396), for a description of the legal system in these territories.

⁴ In Gambia the area of the colony is 69 square miles and in Sierra Leone 256 square miles. The total area of Gambia is about 4,000 square miles and of Sierra Leone about 30,000 square miles. Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th Ed.) “Gambia”and “Sierra Leone”.

⁵ Criminal Procedure Amendment Decree (No. 6 of 1949), s. 2.

^{page 134 note 1} Though it is not the oldest British settlement. This honour belongs to Fort James in the mouth of the Gambia River, which was established by a merchant company in 1618.

^{page 134 note 2} See Burge, , Colonial and Foreign Laws, (1907) Vol. I, p. 272.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 3} Anon. (1722), P. Wms. 75. Blankard v. Galdy (1693), 2 Salk. 411.

^{page 134 note 4} See Blackstone, , Commentaries, (3rd Ed., 1768) Vol. III, pp. 379et sea.,Google Scholar and Vol. IV, p. 343. It is a striking coincidence that at about the same time (1791) the jury system was adopted by the Constituent Assembly in Revolutionary France. Esmein, A., A History of Continental Criminal Procedure, translated by Simpson, J. (London, 1914), p. 417.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 5} J. Alexander Gwyn, “The Failure of the Jury System in Sierra Leone”, African World, 26th May, 1928, Supp., p. vii.

^{page 134 note 6} Sierra Leone Acts, 1800–1829, pp. 8–9 (Colonial Office Library Ms. volume).

^{page 134 note 7} Crooks, J. J., A History of the Colony of Sierra Leone (Dublin, 1903), p. 171.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 8} Juries Amendment Ordinance (No. 59 of 1853), s. 1.

^{page 134 note 9} op. cit., p. ix.

^{page 135 note 1} Juries Amendment Ordinance (No. 66 of 1854), s. 1.

^{page 135 note 2} No. 15 of 1864, s. 1.

^{page 135 note 3} Trial by Jury (Hamlyn Lectures, 1956), at p. 56.

^{page 135 note 4} op. cit., p. ix.

^{page 135 note 5} Cited by Crooks, op. cit., p. 219.

^{page 135 note 6} Ordinance No. 4 of 1866, s. 11. This step appears to have been very unpopular. The three readings of the Ordinance were completed at a single session of the Legislative Council and its confirmation was opposed by a petition signed by nearly 800 people. See Crooks, op. cit., p. 220.

^{page 136 note 1} Parl. Paper C 3430, Nov. 1882, at p. 51.

^{page 136 note 2} No. 18 of 1890, s. 32.

^{page 136 note 3} No. 8 of 1895, s. 20.

^{page 136 note 4} ib., s. 4.

^{page 136 note 5} No. 18 of 1898.

^{page 136 note 6} No. 24 of 1898.

^{page 136 note 7} No. 25 of 1898.

^{page 137 note 1} 76 L.Q.R., op. cit., p. 46.

^{page 137 note 2} By No. 18 of 1898, s. 3 (3).

^{page 137 note 3} It is also notable that whereas by s. 4 of No. 18 of 1898 the three assessors were to be chosen by lot from among the special jurors summoned and could be challenged, under s. 3 of No. 25 of 1898 the three assessors were to be selected by the Court from among the special jurors and there was no provision for challenge.

^{page 137 note 4} No. 18 of 1898, s. 5.

^{page 137 note 5} No. 26 of 1898.

^{page 137 note 6} No. 14 of 1904 (Rev. Laws, 1925 ed., cap. 205) ss. 16–17.

^{page 137 note 7} Rev. Laws, 1925 ed., cap. 106, ss. 28, 40–44.

^{page 137 note 8} No. 39 of 1932, s. 14.

^{page 137 note 9} See also s. 65 for consequential amendments to the Jurors and Assessors Ordinance.

^{page 137 note 10} See above, p. 136.

^{page 138 note 1} By No. 49 of 1932, s. 4.

^{page 138 note 2} See Gwyn, op. cit., p. vii.

^{page 138 note 3} By No. 17 of 1935, s. 2.

^{page 138 note 4} It became cap. 114 of the Laws in the 1946 Revision.

^{page 138 note 5} No. 7 of 1945 (Rev. Laws, 1946 ed., cap. 50).

^{page 138 note 6} By the Jurors and Assessors Amendment Ordinance (No. 2 of 1955), s. 2.

^{page 139 note 1} Though its adoption was advocated by the Hon. E. S. Beohu Betts in his defence of the jury system against Gwyn's attack—see“The Failure of the Jury System in Sierra Leone, A Reply to J. Alexander Gwyn”, The African World, 1st Sept., 1928, Supp. (published 31st Aug., 1928), p. v.

^{page 139 note 2} Rev. Laws, 1946 ed., cap. 114.

^{page 139 note 3} ib., s. 42.

^{page 139 note 4} See post for such a move in Kenya.

^{page 139 note 5} Ordinance of the 28th April, 1945 (“Laws in Force 1843–1867”, p. 48).

^{page 139 note 6} Supreme Court Ordinance (No. 2 of 1851), s. 5.

^{page 140 note 1} Supreme Court Ordinance (No. 3 of 1854), s. 102. This Ordinance adopted for the Gambia most of the provisions of the English Common Law Procedure Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 76).

^{page 140 note 2} By the Administration of Justice Ordinance (No. 8 of 1866), s. 6.

^{page 140 note 3} Juries Ordinance (No. 6 of 1867), s. 2.

^{page 140 note 4} No. 7 of 1882, s. 1. See also No. 3 of 1883.

^{page 140 note 5} No. 8 of 1883, s. 3.

^{page 140 note 6} Supra.

^{page 140 note 7} Cap. 5 of the Laws in the 1955 Revision.

^{page 140 note 8} Corresponding sections in the 1955 Revision are shown in square brackets.

^{page 140 note 9} And cases of criminal libel. Added by No. 3 of 1893.

^{page 140 note 10} Rev. Laws, 1955 ed., cap. 23.

^{page 141 note 1} Supra, p. 136.

^{page 141 note 2} Ordinance No. 22 of 1953.

^{page 141 note 3} No. 1 of 1853, s. 6.

^{page 141 note 4} No. 9 of 1866, s. 6.

^{page 141 note 5} ib., s. 7.

^{page 141 note 6} No. 5 of 1876.

^{page 141 note 7} ib., s. 109.

^{page 141 note 8} ib., s. 110.

^{page 141 note 9} ib., s. 112.

^{page 141 note 10} ib., s. 111.

^{page 141 note 11} See list appended to s. 115 of this Ordinance in the 1909 Edition of the Laws, p. 191.

^{page 142 note 1} ib., s. 110.

^{page 142 note 2} ib., s. 123.

^{page 142 note 3} No. 2 of 1898, s. 11.

^{page 142 note 4} By the Criminal Procedure Amendment Ordinance (No. 12 of 1916).

^{page 142 note 5} ib., s. 7.

^{page 142 note 6} See also pp. 136 and 140.

^{page 142 note 7} No. 12 of 1916, s. 8.

^{page 142 note 8} No. 10 of 1935 and now cap. 10 in the 1951 Revision of the Laws. In this edition the sections have been re-numbered and therefore the corresponding sections in the original Ordinance will be quoted in square brackets.

^{page 142 note 9} ib., s. 257 [s. 244].

^{page 142 note 10} ib., s. 254 [s. 241].

^{page 142 note 11} Order 41 of 1948 (Rev. Laws, 1954 ed., Vol. VII, p. 532).

^{page 143 note 1} Criminal Procedure Ordinance, s. 255 [s. 242].

^{page 143 note 2} S. III.

^{page 143 note 3} S. 258 [s. 245].

^{page 143 note 4} No. 36 of 1953.

^{page 143 note 5} ib., s. 3. The section as printed purports to insert the provision into the principal Ordinance as s. 205 A. This is certainly an error, as the section would be quite out of place there and its correct numbering is probably 217 A.

^{page 143 note 6} Cf. S. Africa, where jury service for (European) women is also voluntary: Female Jurors Act (No. 20 of 1931), s. 2 (1), as amended by Act No. 21 of 1954, s. 17.

^{page 144 note 1} See Burge, , Colonial and Foreign Laws (1907), Vol. I, p. 270.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 2} No. 13 of 1863.

^{page 144 note 3} The Administration of justice Ordinance (No. 9 of 1864), s. 4.

^{page 144 note 4} No. 7 of 1866, s. 7. The corresponding Ordinances in Sierra Leone, Gambia and the Gold Coast, which were in identical terms, all had the effect of reducing the incidence of trial by jury. (See above pp. 135 note 6, 140 note 2, and 141 note 3.) The extension may not therefore have been wholly intended.

^{page 144 note 5} It is not stated whether the verdict was to be unanimous or by a majority and one cannot fall back on the common law rules since the common law did not apply unless expressly adopted. Since this Ordinance repealed No. 9 of 1864 (supra, note 3), the position between 1866 and 1870 as regards capital and non-capital cases remains obscure.

^{page 144 note 6} See above, pp. 135, 143 and 141 respectively.

^{page 144 note 7} No. 6 of 1870.

^{page 144 note 8} ib., s. 11.

^{page 145 note 1} Under the Indian Criminal Procedure Codes of 1882 and 1898 (which were adopted in Zanzibar and Kenya, see post) a jury in the Court of Session can return a bare majority verdict (s. 306) but the trial judge has the power to refer any verdict, unanimous or otherwise, with which he disagrees to the High Court which can confirm, vary or reverse the decision (s. 307). This applies to verdicts of acquittal as well as to convictions.

^{page 145 note 2} No. 5 of 1876.

^{page 145 note 3} No. 5 of 1876; pp. 141–142, ante.

^{page 145 note 4} See Order of 4th April, 1877, appended to s. 110 in the 1901 Edition of the Laws, p. 145.

^{page 145 note 5} No. 9 of 1914.

^{page 145 note 6} See ss. 103–105.

^{page 145 note 7} No. 25 of 1943 (Rev. Laws, 1948 ed., cap. 97).

^{page 145 note 8} No. 42 of 1945 (Rev. Laws, 1948 ed., cap. 43).

^{page 145 note 9} No. 9 of 1946.

^{page 145 note 10} This section has been copied in s. 86 (1) of the Northern Region High Court Law (N.R. No. 8 of 1955), but no order has so far been made under the latter section. S. 106 of the 1914 Criminal Procedure Ordinance, which gave the trial judge a discretion to call assessors to his aid in all trials not held with a jury, was omitted from the 1945 Ordinance. Since that date therefore all trials in Nigeria not heard with a jury have been tried by a judge sitting alone.

^{page 146 note 1} No. 25 of 1943, s. 26.

^{page 146 note 2} ib., s. 27.

^{page 146 note 3} ib., s. 28. Cf. p. 143, note 3.

^{page 146 note 4} ib., s. 64 (a).

^{page 146 note 5} ib., s. 65.

^{page 146 note 6} A similar provision was introduced in S. Rhodesia some 35 years earlier (see post) and is still in force there.

^{page 146 note 7} See Devlin, Trial by Jury, p. 55.

^{page 146 note 8} S. 64 (b) and (c).

^{page 146 note 9} No. 5 of 1876. See above p. 141, note 10.

^{page 146 note 10} No. 9 of 1914.

^{page 146 note 11} S. 15 (1).