In criminal law, corroborating evidence means evidence in addition to what the complainant said happened making the evidence more reliable and in so doing strengthening the case against the accused. Under common law, sexual assault complainants were considered a class of witness to be inherently unreliable. Such allegations were said to be ‘very easy to fabricate, but extremely difficult to refute.
The court would warn the jury of the dangers involved in acting upon uncorroborated evidence
to convict an accused. Corroboration warning runs parallel with Longman warning set out in an earlier blog. The combined effect of a corroboration warning and a Longman warning is that in cases where
there has been a delay in reporting juries are cautioned to take into account the forensic disadvantage facing the defence team.
In 1988, the common law position was replaced by section 50 (1) Evidence Act 1906:
“On the trial of a person on indictment for an offence — (a) the judge is not required by any rule of law or practice to give a corroboration warning to the jury in relation to any offence of which the person is liable to be convicted on the indictment; and the judge shall not give a corroboration warning to the jury unless the judge is satisfied that such a warning is justified in the circumstances”.
Judges are not required to give a corroboration warning
So the starting position is that judges are not required to give a corroboration warning and therefore the only evidence before the court, inter alia, is that of the complainant unless there are circumstances that justify a corroboration warning? What then are these circumstances? The circumstances warranting a corroboration warning mirror those of a Longman warning.
The main circumstances are: delay in making a complaint to police or telling someone particularly a mother of what happened, a persons recollection of past events deteriorate over time, trying to recall events from childhood is frequently inaccurate and often leads to guesswork, lack of particularisation of date, day and time and lack of specificity of the actual alleged offending and surrounding circumstances.
In fairness to the accused without a strong Longman warning (dangerous to convict) and a corroboration warning in similar terms rob the defence of the ability to gather evidence to build the defence case. A presiding judges are mindful of these and invariably endeavour to direct the jury in any number of ways to ensure that justice is served, it’s a question of whether juries understand the directions.
