Corroboration

Question 1

Crown must lead sufficient evidence in order to secure conviction

2 aspects

Answer 1

Proof of crucial facts (facta propaganda) of crime libelled

Proof of such facts by corroborated evidence

Question 2

Morton
V
HMA

Answer 2

No person can be convicted of a crime or offence except where legislature otherwise directs unless there is evidence of at least 2 witnesses implicating a person accused

Acquitted of indecent assault as although victim had id’d him. Only other witness was neighbour who had seen but couldn’t identify

Question 3

Fox
V
HMA

Answer 3

Corroboration is staged to be independent evidence that

Strengthens, confirms or supports the direct evidence

Question 4

P
V
Williams

Answer 4

Dock identification - most common

Convicted of indecent assault of 2 children

Referee to him as dad and big E but neither asked to identify him and conviction quashed

Question 5

Muldoon
V
Herron

Answer 5

Witness can adopt prior statement into evidence where it’s content can be spoken to by another witness

Pointed out accused at time but couldn’t later in dock at trial.

2 sources: police said she said it, another witness that she had made statement and what she said was true

Question 6

Holland
V
HMA

Answer 6

Dock identification highly controversial as it is highly suggestible

Where dock identification is in issue, good practise dictates the crown should hold identity parade and not simply rely on DI, but it is ECHR compliant

Question 7

Ralston
V
HMA

Answer 7

Identification may not be unequivocal but must be positive

Where one emphatic positive id, little else is required

Where witness have evidence that accused resembles perpetrator, regarded as positive identification sufficient to corroborate an explicit identification

Question 8

Farmer
V
HMA

Answer 8

Where witness identifies accused and adds “I think”

May well still be treated as positive identification

Question 9

Macdonald
V
HMA

Answer 9

Identification attempt in which witness stated accused “doesn’t look unlike” perpetrator was held NOT to constitute a positive identification of accused

Question 10

The Howden principle

Answer 10

I’m a case where more than one charge, crown must normally corroborate identification of accused in relation to each separate charge

Howden provides way of achieving corroboration where corroboration of identification of accused is missing in relation to one of the charges

Question 11

Howden requirement

Answer 11

Court must be satisfied

1. Accused committed crime libelled in one charge
2. Due to similarities between circumstances of offences, same person must have committed both, the court can find there to be sufficient evidence of corroboration in relation to both charges, even if would usually be insufficient

Question 12

Townsley
V
Lees

Answer 12

Approved and applied Howden

Perpetrator in each charge held exactly same discussion with each of complainers, dressed similarly, hairstyle

3 thefts all perpetrated in same way.

Sufficient evidence identifying accused on charge 1 and 2 so crown entitled to rely on it being clear that all 3 committed by same person

Question 13

Neutral evidence

Answer 13

Evidence which tends neither to incriminate or exculpatory an accused in the circumstances

DOES NOT CORROBORATE

Question 14

Gallagher
V
HMA

Answer 14

Neutral evidence

3 adminicles of evidence regarded as being entirely neutral and couldn’t corroborate

• admitted to being in flat at time
• blood found in trainers wk later (who’s?)
• seen running away from flat at time of inicident

Question 15

Armit
V
O’Donnell

Answer 15

Confession held to be sufficiently corroborated by presence of accused near scene shortly after police called

Shows single piece of evidence can, in context, be sufficient to corroborate

In practise, very much little is needed to corroborate a confession

Question 16

Redpath
V
Webster

Answer 16

Neutral evidence

Accused said in police interview “she’ll never press anything anyway”

Used to corroborate complainers account
Appealed and quashed as statement neutral, could not be treated as indicative of guilt

Question 17

Woodland
V
Hamilton

Answer 17

Special knowledge confession

Confession that contains within it info about how crime was committed when the only reasonable explanation for them knowing would be if they are perpetrator

Although evidence coming from one source (confession) considered to represent 2 pieces of evidence

Question 18

Manuel
V
HMA

Answer 18

Special knowledge confession

Finding of body and shoes in places identified by accused amounted to corroboration of confession itself

Beast of birkenshaw

Question 19

Gilmour
V
HMA

Answer 19

Fact that account contains inaccurate info does not rob confession of its self corroborating value

Question 20

Moorov doctrine

Conditions

Answer 20

1. Separate acts must be connected by time, character or circumstance
2. Must be some underlying unity, campaign or adventure connecting the acts

Can only be applied when one course of conduct, not where only general disposition or propensity to commit certain type of offence

Question 21

Pringle
V
McPherson

Answer 21

Appeal against conviction by former teacher for 3 charges of indecently assaulting pupils on school trips

Due to lapse of time and evidence of accused having organised numerous other trips within same time frame, couldn’t apply Moorov to apply corrob. for charge 10 years prior

Earlier evidence could only be drawn to indicate general disposition of P’s part to engage in sexual activity with young boys

Question 22

P
V
HMA

Answer 22

Offences to be connected are not required to be of same name - importance lies in similar nature of offences, underlying unity of conduct

Allowed mutual corroboration between offences of rape and sodomy, connection lying in conduct of penetrative sexual abuse of children

Question 23

Bargon
V
HMA

Answer 23

Confirmed no fixed period after which Moorov inapplicable

Question 24

Distress as corroboration

Answer 24

Lack of consent is essential element - part of facta propanda - and so must be corroborated

Where complainer exhibited distress shortly after offence and this is witnessed by 3rd party this can corroborate lack of consent

Question 25

Smith
V
Lees

Answer 25

Distress can corroborate lack of consent but not what actually happened

Question 26

McCann
V
HMA

Answer 26

Greater passage of time the more difficult to prove distress cause by alleged incident and not intervening factor

Alleged rape, distress not shown till 14hrs later. Had seemed fine, didn’t tell adult son.
Didn’t appear distressed till came of phone with accused. Came too late

Question 27

Wilson
V
HMA

Answer 27

Charged with SA whilst C asleep and under influence of alcohol

C hadn’t made any allegations next morning when saw bf and mother, had exchanged messages with accused and gf without any apparent distress

Best firmed gave evidence of distress during discussion 30 hours after

Held could corroborate. 30 hr gap not issue

Question 28

Circumstantial evidence

Answer 28

Not direct evidence but is evidence that is directly incriminating

Eg possession of incriminating article
Forensic evidence, reactions of accused

Question 29

Case can be purely based on circumstantial evidence

Answer 29

Contrast to traditional corroboration

When an inference of guilt can be drawn from all of the circumstances and as long as evidence comes from at least 2 sources, no need to corroborate each of fact propanda individually

Question 30

Auchie

Circumstantial evidence

Answer 30

In such cases, the adminicles of circumstantial evidence build a picture which, when taken together allow an inference of guilt to be drawn

Even though no direct evidence of accused involvement

Question 31

Norval
V
HMA

Answer 31

4 men charge with hospital armed robbery

Car model - matching number plate
Anti climb paint found on clothes
N left bag with guns and masks with witness which he then said he was going to drop in a place where it was later found

Sufficient evidence to entitle jury to find N had participated in armed robbery.

Question 32

Broadly
V
HMA

Answer 32

Broadley convicted on basis she had caused victim to fall from window.

Prostitute and heroin addict who worked for broadley. Owed her money. Regularly assaulted and threatened. Had kidnapped and kept in flat overnight.

Held: not established by what means she had cause her to go through window eg verbal or physical. No basis of evidence for involvement, only fingerprints on window were victims. Looking at evidence as whole lore legitimate inference would be that she committed suicide

Question 33

Routine forensic evidence

Answer 33

Some statutory provisions mean certain routine evidence does not need to be spoken to by 2 sources where accused will not challenge

Question 34

Langan
V
HMA

Answer 34

Where dna or fingerprint of accused is found in place or on object for which they would not usually have access and where place or object is connected with crime

There will be regarded sufficient evidence in absence of innocent explanation by accused

Single fingerprint found in home of victim left at time when finger wet with blood sufficient to convict

Offered no explanation but consistently denied being in house before

Question 35

Reid
V
HMA

Answer 35

Cigarette burr containing R dna with match of 1/billion recovered by police from Scene close to point of entry and exit

Entitled to infer dna belonged to him and had smoked and dropped in process of house breaking

Absent from any other explanation, sheriff bound to refuse a no case to answer submission