Corroborating evidence, Indentification evidence and Lies form the Accused

Corroborating evidence is that which is dependant of the witness whose evidence needs corroboration and connects the accused with the commission of the crime by (on the face of it) confirming that the crime was committed and that it was committed by the accused. Corroboration is now only required in exceptional circumstances, for example a under the offence of speeding as can be seen by the case of Nicholas v Penny 1950, it is not enough that one person witnessed the speeding there must be supporting evidence, for example by that of another witness or of a speed gun.

The prior position that was there was a need for corroboration on the evidence given by certain classes of witnesse4s. These were children, accomplices giving evidence for the prosecution and evidence given in sexual offence complaints. However this requirement has now been removed. The case of R v Makanjuola (1995) states that a warning need not be given, but is appropriate when there is an evidential basis suggesting that witness's evidence is unreliable. This may be in circumstances beyond those already mentioned, for example in relation to the mental state of the witness, or if the witness has some improper purpose to serve.

The main provisions that relate to identification evidence are set out by the case of R v Turnbull (1977) which lays down certain guidelines when the case is based wholly or substantially on identification evidence. Here judge should direct the jury that special caution is required, and direct them as to the facts of the identification that should be scrutinised, for example taking into account such factors such as, length of the observation, the distance that the observation took place, the amount of people within the observation are at the time, the amount of light present and whether or not the witness knew or may have recognised the person that they saw.

If the evidence is of good quality then the jury can be left alone to assess the evidence as ling as the warning has been given. However if the evidence is of a poor quality then the trail judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence that is capable of supporting the identification evidence.

The Turnbull Guidelines also apply to photos or video recordings and apply in a modified form as regards the context of voice identification evidence. However f the jury are making identification from a photo or video then the guidelines will not apply, but the judge should direct the jury as to the quality of the evidence and any change in the appearance of the person on the medium. If the issue is solely that the witness is lying then there is no need for a warning under the case of R v Cape.

If lies have been made by the accused then the jury is entitled to drawn inference from the lies of the accused in or out of court - only if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he lied and did so because guilty and not for another reason. Here a Lucas Direction should be given. This will be necessary where an alibi is raised by the defence, where the judge advises the jury to look for evidence in support of the evidence of an unreliable witness and identifies lies which the accused has or may have told as potential supporting evidence, where the prosecution relies upon lies which the accused has or may have told as evidence of his guilt., and where there is a danger that the jury may rely upon lies which the accused may have told as evidence of his guilt.