You are on page 1of 10

NKUMBA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

AND INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE


COURSE WORK

COURSE UNIT:

LAW OF EVIDENCE .II

INDEX NO:

2013-AUG-LLB-11936

LACTURER:

MR. MUKIIBI CORNELIOUS

SUMISSION DATE:

24th -02-2016

QUESTION;
Subject to the provisions of any other law in force, no particular
number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of
any fact. Discuss

A witness is a person who has seen an event or testifies about what he has seen.

A witness is referred to under the Blacks Law Dictionary as One who sees,
knows, or vouches for something e.g. a witness to a testator's signature. One
who gives testimony under oath or affirmation in person, by oral or written
deposition, or by affidavit the witness to the signature signed the affidavit. A
witness must be legally competent to testify.
"The term 'witness,' in its strict legal sense, means one who gives evidence
in a cause before a court; and in its general sense includes all persons from
whose lips testimony is extracted to be used in any judicial proceeding, and
so includes deponents and affiants as well as persons delivering oral
testimony before a court or jury2.
As a general Rule, Section 133 0f the evidence Act states that Subject
to the provisions of any other law in force, no particular number of witnesses
shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.3
The common law has been very particular about the kinds of evidence that are
admissible in court. Hearsay, opinion, character and other sorts of evidence are
excluded unless they fit within exceptions. These are refered to as rules of the
quality of evidence. That is, we could say that the quality of hearsay, opinion or
character alerts us to the fact that the particular evidence may not be admissible.
However, just as the common law has been strict about the quality of evidence, it
has been fairly liberal in rules about the quantity of evidence. In other words, if
evidence is admissible, it does not take very much of it to lead to a finding.
Generally a court is able to act on the evidence of one credible witness. This is so
even if there is an opposing witness who is not believed. In the vast majority of civil
cases a trier of fact (judge, assessors or jury) can make a finding in favour of a
plaintiff on the basis of only one witness. Whether a trier of fact will do so in any
particular case is a matter of credibility and weight.
In a criminal case it is usually the case that a conviction can be based on the
credible evidence of only one witness. The exceptions to this are where we find the
role of corroboration and the rules governing it.

1 Online English Dictionary


2 Blacks Law Dictionary 9th edition
3 Evidence act Cap 6

The same is true of most offences. As long as the evidence of one witness (whose
evidence covers all of the necessary elements) is believed, it will be sufficient.
There is no general rule of law that it takes more than one witness to convict of
criminal cases. The same is true in civil cases.

As a general rule, evidence given against a defendant does not need to be


corroborated. A defendant can generally be convicted on the uncorroborated
evidence of a single credible witness, provided that the judge or jury is
satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt.
However, this principle in section 1334 is not absolute because it creates
exceptions in the sense that it is subject to any other law in force. It recognizes that
there are occasions where it would be dangerous to convict on the evidence of a
witness unless the evidence is supported by some other independent evidence. The

requirement for corroboration is an exception to the general rule because it


permits more witnesses. The rules of evidence that require corroboration are
based on statute.
There are other rules that fall short of requiring corroboration but which merely
require the Trier of fact to be warned (or to warn him or herself in the case of a
judge sitting alone) about the danger of convicting in the absence of corroboration.
These rules are sometimes based on statute and sometimes they are matters of
practice which have evolved into rules of common law.

Corroboration is Confirmation or support by additional evidence or


authority corroboration of the witness's testimony5.
Corroborative evidence is that evidence which tends to support or confirm
other evidence already given in court and it has to be from an independent
source. Evidence that is itself corroborative cannot corroborate other
evidence because both need to be supported.
The term corroborative evidence was defined in R v Baskerville6 wherein
B had been charged with acts of gross indecency with 2 boys. The only direct
evidence of the act was the evidence of the 2 boys, but it transpired that at
the trial, the two boys were accomplices to the act. It was held that their
evidence had to be corroborated and court defined corroborative evidence as
evidence which, in some material particular, tends to show that the accused
committed the crime charged.
4 Evidence Act cap 6
5 Blacks Law Dictionary 9th edition
6 1962 KB 658

According to Lord Reading, We hold that evidence in corroboration must


be independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or
tending to connect him with the crime, i.e. it must be evidence which
implicates him, meaning that the evidence which confirms in some material
particular, not only the evidence that the crime has been committed, but
also, that the accused committed it.
This decision was followed in the case of R v Manilal Purohit7 wherein
court emphasized that Corroboration, which should be looked for, is some
additional evidence rendering it probable that the evidence of the witness is
true and it is reasonably safe to act upon it, that it must be independent
evidence which affects the accused by connecting him or tending to connect
him with the crime confirming in some material particular, not only the
evidence that the crime has been committed, but also, that the accused
committed it. However, it is not necessary to have confirmation of all
circumstances of the crime. Corroboration of some material particular,
tending to implicate the accused is enough.
Corroboration is provided for under section 10 of the Oaths Act which
states that No person shall be convicted or judgment given upon the
uncorroborated evidence of a person who shall have given his or her
evidence without oath or affirmation8.
Two issues arise in respect of corroboration. The first issue is what types of
cases require corroboration. The second issue is what kinds of evidence
constitute corroboration.
As already stated hereinabove, corroborative evidence must be independent
testimony9, it should connect the accused to the commission of the offence;
and it neednt corroborate the whole story10.
The corroboration rules were formulated in the interests of the accused, with
the aim of avoiding wrongful convictions in three types of cases, namely, (i)
the evidence of accomplices; (ii) the evidence of the complainant in sexual
offences; (iii) the evidence of children.

7 (1949) 9 EACA 58
8 Section 10 of the Oaths Act chapter 19
9 R v Baskerville
10 R v Manilal

Corroboration of evidence is basis to ensure reliability of the evidence that


has been given. Because in certain situations, court feels cautious about
using certain pieces of evidence e.g. where some of the witnesses are
interested parties, e.g. the accomplices and the co-accused; and because
there are some offences where it is rare to have direct witnesses apart from
the complainant e.g. in sexual offences, most times the only witness is the
complainant and at trial, it becomes the complainants word against the
accuseds. Thus, court needs corroboration to test the reliability of that
evidence11.
There two main situations in which Court will require Corroboration i.e. where
corroboration is required as a matter of law, i.e. where there is a statutory
requirement; and where corroboration is required as a matter of judicial
practice or prudence.
Corroboration as a statutory requirement
There are a number of statutes that make corroboration in certain instances
a necessity. What is worth noting is the effect of the corroboration
requirement. The effect is that court must always get corroboration and as
such, cannot convict without it. The corroboration rules apply in two ways. In
some cases, corroboration is required by law. This means that a defendant
cannot be convicted if there is no corroboration. Examples of this
requirement can be found in the following acts;
s.10 Oaths Act which requires all evidence in court to be sworn. There are
exceptions created under the Magistrates Courts Act and the Trial on
Indictment Act, although in judicial practice whether or not the evidence is
sworn, it must be corroborated.
1.
Penal Code Act
There are a number of offences where the evidence must be corroboration
before a conviction can be made, e.g. Treason under section 23, Sedition
contrary to section 141, Perjury under section 98, Procuring defilement of
women by threats;
2.
The Traffic & Road Safety Act e.g. over speeding and reckless driving;
3.
Childrens Act
e.g. petition for a declaration of parentage; unsworn
evidence of a child of tender years must be corroborated.
Corroboration as a requirement of Judicial Practice
There are a number of these circumstances of judicial prudence. The
difference between these and the former is that here, the conviction based
on this may not be fatal, as court may not convict on uncorroborated
11 R V Kilbourne

evidence. Court has the discretion to decide if the evidence is reliable, but
must always caution itself of the requirement for corroboration.
The first example is Accomplice evidence.
Accomplice witness is a witness who is an accomplice in the crime that the
defendant is charged with12.A codefendant cannot be convicted solely on the
testimony of an accomplice witness.
This is governed by s.132 of the Act13 according to which, an accomplice shall
be a competent witness against an accused person and a conviction is not
illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice. By statutory provision, there is no requirement of this, but courts
have seen that it is evidence of the worst kind and must be corroborated.
The rationale for requiring corroboration for accomplice evidence was given
in The Handbook for Magistrates: i) Accomplices are usually interested
parties and they are generally always infamous witnesses as a result of
which their evidence is regarded as untrustworthy by courts. The reason is
that the accomplice is likely to tell lies in order to shift guilt from himself or
to play down the part that he took commission in the offence14.
ii) As a company, a partner in crime with the accused, an accused is not
likely to value his oath15;
iii) If an accomplice usually gives evidence because of the hope or promise to
be pardoned or treated leniently by the prosecution16.
Sexual offences
The evidence of the complainant/ victim must be corroborated in these
offences as a rule of judicial practice. The rule was laid down in the case of
Chila v R17 wherein it was held that the Judge should warn assessors and
himself of the danger of acting upon the uncorroborated evidence of the

12 Blacks Law Dictionary 9th edition


13 Evidence Act cap 6
14 R v Aaskerville
15 Davis v R (1954)AC 378
16 Govinder Singh v R (1956)23EACA 597
17 (1967)EA 722

complainant. Having done so, he may not convict in the absence of


corroboration if he is satisfied that there has been no failure of justice.
According to Glanville Williams18, there is a sound reason for the
requirement of corroboration because sexual cases are particularly subject to
the danger of deliberately false charges resulting from sexual neurosis,
fantasy, jealousy, spite or simply a girls refusal to admit that she consented
to an act of which she is now ashamed.
Medical reports or any other evidence e.g. state of the complainant i.e.
distressed condition, e.g. torn clothes, beaten body, etc. If the complainant
immediately reported the assault, it can be a part of the corroboration.
Courts have held that the best corroborative evidence is medical evidence,
as to whether or not there was defilement, rape, etc. Sometimes, a semen
test is done and if there are deposits in the complainant, court may use this
as corroborative evidence. It is mandatory, especially when the accused is in
custody, to submit to medical examination.
This was well exemplified in the case of Ngobi v R19 wherein A small girl was
defiled and in the course was also infected with an STD. The accused denied
any knowledge of the child. Medical examination was done and found the
child to be infected with the same strain of STD as the accused. Held: The
medical evidence was good corroborative evidence that he had defiled the
girl.
Dying Declarations must be also corroborated as a matter of judicial
prudence.
Confessions against the co-accused; Retracted and Repudiated confessions
as supported in the case of Tuwamoi v Uganda
In the identification case, there is no express requirement that the
evidence of a single witness under difficult conditions, e.g. robbery at night
be corroborated. This is because of the noted danger of convitcting an
accused on the basis of mistaken identity. This was exemplified in the case of
Roria v R20 wherein it was stated that there may be cases in which the
identity of the accused is the main question and if any innocent people are
convicted today, I should think in some cases there is the likelihood of raising
the question of identity is very eminent
18 (1962)CLR 662
19 (1953) 20 EACA 56
20 (1967) EA 5883 (CAN)

Furthermore in the case of R v Turnbull21 court emphasized corroboration


incase the accused depends wholly or sustatiallly on correctness of
identification of accused alleged to be mistaken, the judge warns of the
special need for caution before convicting in reliance thereon. There is need
to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each
witness came to be made. And the failure to consider these guidelines is
likely to result in a conviction being quashed.
Here what is required is not a corroboration warning as such but rather a
care wairning that indicates that the trial judge was alive to the dangers of
acting on evidence of visual identity of a single witness.
Evidence of a child of tender years; According to the Law, the unsworn
evidence of a child of tender years requires corroboration. Even judicial
practice requires this as it was stated in Oloo s/o Gai v R 22 where in it was
held that the judge relied on the evidence of a 12 year old child to convict
the appellant for murder. He did not warn himself of the need to corroborate
the childs evidence. The Court of Appeal held that it was erroneous for the
judge to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of the child, even if it had been
sworn evidence.
This is more so if the child is a prosecution witness. The rationale for this
according to Glanville Williams is that children can easily be coached
therefore court must treat their evidence cautiously; children are
impressionable and susceptible; they are easily fooled and a childs power of
observation and reasoning is far below that of an adult therefore their
evidence must be approached with great care.
In conclusion therefore, It is a fundamental principle of the law of evidence
that facts must be proved, but in a proper case, be corroborated before court
may conclusively determine on the facts in which corroboration is an
essential ingredient of the of evidence.

21 (1977)QB224
22 (1960)EA 87

BIBIOGRAPHY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Uniform evidence law; Third Edition by Stephen Odgers


Key cases by JacaubElineMatin and Chris Turner
Blacks Law Dictionary 9th Edition
The Law and Practice of Evidence in Kenya by Kyalo
A guideto Evidence by Weight and Williams.

STATUTES
1. Penal Code Act cap 120
2. Evidence Act cap 6
3. 1995 constitution of Uganda
4. Oaths Act cap 19
5. Trafic and Road Safety act
6. Childrens Act

You might also like