Corroboration Flashcards
Independent evidence confirming or supporting a fact
121 Corroboration
(1) It is not necessary in a criminal proceeding for the evidence on which the prosecution relies to be corroborated, except with respect to the offences of -
(a) perjury (section 108 of the Crimes Act 1961); and
(b) false oaths (section 110 of the Crimes Act 1961); and
(c) false statements or declarations (section 111 of the Crimes Act 1961); and
(d) treason (section 73 of the Crimes Act 1961).
(2) Subject to subsection (1) and section 122, if in a criminal proceeding there is a jury, it is not necessary for the Judge to -
(a) warn the jury that it is dangerous to act on uncorroborated evidence or to give a warning to the same or similar effect; or
(b) give a direction relating to the absence of corroboration.
In general, one witness’s testimony, unsupported by any other evidence, will suffice to prove a case where the court is satisfied that it is reliable and accurate and provides proof to the required standard. It does not always follow that the court will act on the evidence of one witness; it simply means that it may do so
when sufficiently satisfied as to its cogency.
“Corroboration” is not defined in the Act. It is independent evidence that tends to confirm or support some fact of which other evidence is given and implicates the defendant in the crime charged.
Corroboration required as a matter of law in some circumstances
There are two types of offence – perjury and related offences (ss 108, 110 and 111 Crimes Act) and treason (s73 Crimes Act) – in which the unsupported evidence of one witness is insufficient to support a conviction. In these instances, corroboration is required as a matter of law.
Warning to jury relating to the absence of corroboration
Section 121(2) provides that there is no requirement for either a general warning to the jury about the dangers of relying on uncorroborated evidence, or a direction to be given relating to the absence of corroboration. This is subject to the exceptions in s121(1) for perjury and treason; and to s122, where the judge may warn the jury about unreliable evidence – see chapter 5.
Under s122, if the judge is of the opinion that uncorroborated evidence may be unreliable, he or she may warn the jury of the need for caution, notwithstanding the general provision in s121(2). This would not necessarily take the form of the warning envisaged under s121(2)(a) and (b), but could do so.
It is therefore still open to the judge to give a warning to the jury or instruct them to take special care in cases where evidence is uncorroborated or a witness may be of doubtful reliability.
Child complainants
Section 125(1) prohibits a corroboration warning in cases involving child complainants where the warning would not have been given had the complainant been an adult. It provides that:
125 Judicial directions about children’s evidence
(1) In a criminal proceeding tried with a jury in which the complainant is a child at the time when the proceeding commences, the Judge must not give any warning to the jury about the absence of corroboration of the evidence of the complainant if the Judge
would not have given that kind of a warning had the complainant been an adult
Summary
- A general proposition is that all people are eligible to give evidence, and all who are eligible are compellable to give that evidence.
- The spouse of a defendant is no longer regarded as non-compellable to give evidence under the provisions of s71.
- When a witness is eligible to give evidence and chooses or is compelled to do so, he or she may still be able to refuse or be prevented from answering particular questions on the grounds of privilege.
- A privilege in relation to the giving of evidence is the right to refuse to disclose, or to prevent disclosure, of evidence that would otherwise be admissible.
- In a criminal proceeding, corroboration is not necessary for the evidence on which the prosecution relies, except for a few specified offences.
