Corroboration Flashcards
what is corroboration?
case which shows it?
requirement where the essential ingredients for the crime are proved by more than one source of evidence. 10 pieces of evidence from the same source is not enough.
Fox v HMA - evidence which strengthens or confirms or supports direct evidence. these pieces of evidence must support each other, not conflict. neutral evidence cannot provide corroboration Gallagher v HMA - 3 pieces of evidence were neutral.
Red path v webster - shell never press anything anyway- neutral statement.
what must be shown through corroborated evidence?
it needs to be shown that the crime has been committed and
it was committed by the accused.
why do we have corroboration?
provides an independent check on the evidence in question.safeguard to protect against miscarriages of justice.
what is direct evidence?
this can be from eyewitness testimony or from confession evidence
Inconsistent evidence
where the evidence relied upon for corroboration does not match the principle evidence. it does not confirm or support th evidence and so cannot be corroborative
Mcdonald v scott kicking and punching.
Circumstantial evidence, what is it and can it corroborate?
not a direct thing of evidence but could be an inference which leads onto something else.
this can be used as corroboration.
these include forensic evidence like DNA, print evidence, Distress evidence of the victims after the event, reactions of the accused.
a case can be based purely on these things.
why might we not want corroboration as a rule?
Acts as a barrier to proof, impediment to justice.
can be a problem in cases such as sexual assault, domestic abuse as usually there is only one witness.
widely misunderstood by lawyers and so even harder for the lay person to understand what is going on.
creates an injustice as it focuses on quantity rather than quality of evidence.
Morton v HMA - identification of the accused by the victim in an identification parade with the brother seeing her in a distressed state as well as the neighbour seeing something was held not enough to corroborate the crime.
a confession needs to be corroborated and this is the best evidence which you can get.
safeguard of the jury- they still need to decide if the evidence is enough to prosecute.
which case showed that it is now possible to draw a jury inference from video footage alone about someone being on a video.
Gubinas v HMA
which case showed the concern for dock identification?
Holland v HMA
prosecution infringed his article 6 rights of self incrimination by relying on witnesses who identified him when he was sitting in the dock during his trial.
was held that it was an unfair trial and his conviction was quashed.
court held that just because he was in court was not assisting the prosecution in self incrimination.
said that if the person could not identify the person at the identification parade and then invited them to say whether they were the person in the dock then this invited an element of risk.
now.. there has not been a successful dock identification case. however, considerable care must be used in dock ID - Jenkins v HMA.
how good does identification evidence need to be?
must be regarded as positive identification and does not need to be unequivocal e.g 100%
Ralston v HMA - said there was insufficient evidence to say he was the perpetrator of the attack. refused- one positive id by one witness, another said he resembled the person in an id parade, another said it was possible for him o be the person. this was enough.
if they say ‘i think’ this is still valid.
‘does not look unlike’ - not enough for a positive ID Macdonald v HMA.
what is the Howden Principle?
Howden v HMA
where there is more than one charge on the accused. the principle can provide a way of achieving corroboration in relation to one of the charges.
bank robbery, unable to say he was the person that done it. held that there were similarities between the cases and that if the jury were satisfied then they could say that he was the perpetrator of one crime and the other. clothing was similar as well as conduct as well as same place. both cases had very similar facts.
same logic was followed in Townsley v Lees
did not work in Gillan v HMA.
which case shows that very little is needed for the corroboration of a confession?
this is shown in Armit v O’Donnell
also seen in Hatley v HMA where the accused had muddy trousers which was enough to corroborate the crime.
what are special knowledge confessions?
cases for this?
because this it contains information about how the crime was committed and only the person who committed the crime would know this. this comes from Woodland v Hamilton.
this is a self corroborating confession.
although the evidence comes from one source, it demonstrates two pieces of evidence.
if there is accurate information and inaccurate information about how the crime was committed in a confession then the inaccurate information must be disregarded.- Gilmour v HMA.
distress as corroboration
this can come in the form of two types. firstly, distress and secondly surprise.
distress as corroboration
case for this
timing aspect?
distress can corroborate a sexual assault in lack of consent.
the principle evidence must come from the complainer alleging the offence and the distress can corroborate the lack of consent.
this was confirmed in Smith v Lees where distress corroborated lack of consent. found that this cannot corroborate the mechanics of the crime, it only proved that what happened was distressing and that she did not consent.
timing- there is no fixed time period from when distress should be shown but it was held in McCann v HMA that 14 hours later was too long as she was happy at work and did not tell her son.
in P v HMA it was held that 27 hours after could corroborate the incident.
