Ako Ad Jei & Anor V. The King (1951)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Seditious article—Syrians a well-defined class—Notes or headings of summing up sufficient—Criminal responsibility of Chairman and Managing Director of a newspaper where he has appointed an editor and has no knowledge of the seditious article—Distinction between English law and Gold Coast law.

Facts

The second appellant published an article attacking the Syrian community, which the Court held to be clearly seditious. Objection was taken to the summing up and it was argued that the trial was a nullity because the trial Judge, instead of setting out his summing up verbatim, wrote only notes or heads of his summing up.

The first appellant was the Chairman and Managing Director of the newspaper concerned, and it was argued that as he had appointed an editor and the article had been published without his knowledge or consent, he was not criminally responsible for the publication. Reliance was placed on the case of Regina v. Holdbrook (2) decided under section 7 of the Libel Act, 6 and 7 Vict. Cap. 96.

Held

The Syrian community was a well-defined class capable of being libelled. Although the summing up should have been more fully recorded, Counsel for the appellants were unable to refer to any misdirection or non-direction, and it was sufficient.

By the statute Law Revision Ordinance, Cap. 2, the Libel Act already referred to had been declared not to be in force in the Gold Coast. Proof of knowledge or mens rea on the part of the publisher, be he Chairman, Managing Director or Editor, was not placed on the prosecution, and the proprietor is answerable criminally for the publication of the libel, although he had nothing to do with the publication and the whole is conducted by his servants.

Appeals dismissed.