Corroboration Flashcards
Crown must lead sufficient evidence in order to secure conviction
2 aspects
Proof of crucial facts (facta propaganda) of crime libelled
Proof of such facts by corroborated evidence
Morton
V
HMA
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
Fox
V
HMA
Corroboration is staged to be independent evidence that
Strengthens, confirms or supports the direct evidence
P
V
Williams
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
Muldoon
V
Herron
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
Holland
V
HMA
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
Ralston
V
HMA
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
Farmer
V
HMA
Where witness identifies accused and adds “I think”
May well still be treated as positive identification
Macdonald
V
HMA
Identification attempt in which witness stated accused “doesn’t look unlike” perpetrator was held NOT to constitute a positive identification of accused
The Howden principle
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
Howden requirement
Court must be satisfied
- Accused committed crime libelled in one charge
- 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
Townsley
V
Lees
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
Neutral evidence
Evidence which tends neither to incriminate or exculpatory an accused in the circumstances
DOES NOT CORROBORATE
Gallagher
V
HMA
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
Armit
V
O’Donnell
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
Redpath
V
Webster
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
Woodland
V
Hamilton
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
Manuel
V
HMA
Special knowledge confession
Finding of body and shoes in places identified by accused amounted to corroboration of confession itself
Beast of birkenshaw
Gilmour
V
HMA
Fact that account contains inaccurate info does not rob confession of its self corroborating value
Moorov doctrine
Conditions
- Separate acts must be connected by time, character or circumstance
- 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
Pringle
V
McPherson
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
P
V
HMA
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
Bargon
V
HMA
Confirmed no fixed period after which Moorov inapplicable
Distress as corroboration
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
Smith
V
Lees
Distress can corroborate lack of consent but not what actually happened
McCann
V
HMA
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
Wilson
V
HMA
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
Circumstantial evidence
Not direct evidence but is evidence that is directly incriminating
Eg possession of incriminating article
Forensic evidence, reactions of accused
Case can be purely based on circumstantial evidence
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
Auchie
Circumstantial evidence
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
Norval
V
HMA
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.
Broadly
V
HMA
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
Routine forensic evidence
Some statutory provisions mean certain routine evidence does not need to be spoken to by 2 sources where accused will not challenge
Langan
V
HMA
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
Reid
V
HMA
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
