Corroboration Cases Flashcards
Corroboration is
A rule required in every criminal case
That two individual pieces of evidence that the proves the essential fact
By direct or circumstantial evidence
Fox v HMA
Corroboration only needs to be capable of confirming or supporting the direct evidence
Does not need to corroborate every facta probanda
Smith v Lee
Distress can corroborate
In this case it was held that corroboration could not exist as 14 hours later was too long. It corroborated the lack of consent but not the actual act
Ralston v HMA
In order to corroborate someone’s identity ID is enough
Gallagher v HMA
3 adminicles of evidence which were regarded as neutral were not enough to corroborate
Redpath v Webster
“She’ll never press charges anyway”
Considered as neutral evidence
Cannot corroborate
Meredith v Lees
Independent evidence that corroborates confessions of self incriminating evidence
Manuel v HMA
Peculiar facts only in the knowledge of the guilty is self corroborating as he also confessed
Man led police to the grave of 6 murdered people
Howden principle
Robbed two banks
14 days apart
The crimes were so similar they could have only been committed by the same person
An attempted crime can corroborate a complete one
Moorov v HMA
Sexual assault in work place
One crime can corroborate another If Time Place Circumstance Character of crime are consistent
Pringle v McPherson
The underpinning facta probanda must be sufficient in order to overlook time difference
