{"id":1603,"date":"2021-08-02T09:39:57","date_gmt":"2021-08-02T09:39:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/legalblog.ie\/?p=1603"},"modified":"2021-08-09T21:17:13","modified_gmt":"2021-08-09T21:17:13","slug":"corroboration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/corroboration\/","title":{"rendered":"Corroboration"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_63 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title \" >Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/corroboration\/#Requirement_for_Corroboration\" title=\"Requirement for Corroboration\">Requirement for Corroboration<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/corroboration\/#Warning_Required_if_None\" title=\"Warning Required if None\">Warning Required if None<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/corroboration\/#Nature_of_Corroboration\" title=\"Nature of Corroboration\">Nature of Corroboration<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/corroboration\/#Prompt_Consistent_Statements\" title=\"Prompt Consistent Statements\">Prompt Consistent Statements<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/corroboration\/#Accomplice_Evidence\" title=\"Accomplice Evidence\">Accomplice Evidence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/corroboration\/#Risks_with_Accompliice_Evidence\" title=\"Risks with Accompliice Evidence\">Risks with Accompliice Evidence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/corroboration\/#Accomplice_Evidence_Issues\" title=\"Accomplice Evidence Issues\">Accomplice Evidence Issues<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Requirement_for_Corroboration\"><\/span>Requirement for Corroboration<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Historically, corroboration was required in a range of circumstances.\u00a0 The circumstances in which it was required have reduced significantly in the last 30 years.\u00a0 In some cases, it was not permissible to convict without corroboration.\u00a0 In other cases, a warning as to the dangers of conviction without corroboration was to be given by the Judge to the jury. Corroboration related to certain types of evidence in respect of which it was assumed the jury may give too much weight.<\/p>\n<p>Historically, certain types of evidence required corroboration.\u00a0 The categories of evidence that require clear corroboration have been narrowed in recent years.\u00a0 Corroboration is required in respect of certain types of evidence which is assumed to be relatively weak.\u00a0 In particular, it has been assumed that juries might be willing to act on it and convict without appreciating its weakness.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Warning_Required_if_None\"><\/span>Warning Required if None<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Certain types of evidence were insufficient unless corroborated.\u00a0Other types of evidence were admissible but required a warning to the jury in respect of the danger of prosecuting without corroboration.<\/p>\n<p>A warning is required in relation to the conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>an accomplice<\/li>\n<li>person in the witness program and<\/li>\n<li>an uncorroborated confession.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Formerly, it was a requirement that there be corroboration in a charge of rape or other sexual offence.\u00a0 The Criminal Law Rape (Amendment) Act provided that a Judge had the discretion whether or not to give a warning in relation to convicting without corroboration in sexual offences.\u00a0 The provision was originally enacted in 1981 and was amended in 1990.<\/p>\n<p>A warning may be given at the discretion of the trial judge in relation to children\u2019s evidence complaints in the trial of sexual offences.\u00a0 In the latter cases, the rules required a mandatory warning or in some cases, mandatory corroboration was itself required.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Nature_of_Corroboration\"><\/span>Nature of Corroboration<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Corroboration is some independent evidence connecting the accused with the crime.\u00a0 It must confirm by way of some particular material evidence that the crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused.\u00a0 It may be direct evidence, or it may be circumstantial evidence.<\/p>\n<p>The essence of corroboration is that it is independent of that which it corroborates. It may take any form including verbal evidence, documentary evidence and in some cases hearsay.\u00a0 It may include fingerprint, DNA or equivalent evidence.<\/p>\n<p>In some cases, it may be appropriate for the Judge to warn the jury to exercise caution before acting on the unsupported evidence of a witness.\u00a0 It is a matter for the Judge to decide how strong the warnings should be and in what terms they should be given.\u00a0 No particular form of words is required.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Prompt_Consistent_Statements\"><\/span>Prompt Consistent Statements<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Generally, a person is precluded from giving evidence of prior consistent statements.\u00a0 There is an exception, which developed in the context of the requirement for corroboration in cases of sexual offences. \u00a0Where a complaint is made, promptly after the alleged assault, etc., this is admissible.<\/p>\n<p>The complaint must have been made as speedily as could be as reasonably expected and on a voluntary basis. \u00a0It should not be the result of inducement or exhortation.\u00a0 It should be made clear to the jury that such evidence is not evidence of the facts on which the complaint is based but is to show that the victim&#8217;s conduct is consistent with present testimony.\u00a0 It does not amount to corroboration but supports consistency.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Accomplice_Evidence\"><\/span>Accomplice Evidence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Uncorroborated accomplice evidence has historically been treated with suspicion.\u00a0 There may be a risk that one party is motivated to give false evidence for his benefit to the detriment of the co-accused.<\/p>\n<p>There is no rule of law to the effect that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice must be rejected.\u00a0 The Judge must bear in mind that it is dangerous to convict on evidence of an accomplice unless it is corroborated.\u00a0 If having borne that in mind and giving due weight to the warning, the evidence is still clearly acceptable to the extent that the danger is not present in the particular case, the tribunal whether the Judge or jury may act on the accomplice evidence.<\/p>\n<p>A judge should caution the jury regarding the risks of conviction on the basis of uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice.\u00a0 Where there is no jury, the Judge is required to act, be cautious in acting on uncorroborated accomplice evidence.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Risks_with_Accompliice_Evidence\"><\/span>Risks with Accompliice Evidence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Corroboration is something that tends to implicate the accused in the commission of the offence.\u00a0 It must be independent of the evidence, which it corroborates.\u00a0 The corroboration may be direct or circumstantial.\u00a0\u00a0 Accordingly evidence, which in itself is not corroborative may together with other circumstances, be corroborative.<\/p>\n<p>Where accomplice evidence is accompanied by promises of leniency and possible clemency, there is a very high risk that the evidence will be suspect.\u00a0 Regard must be had to the motivations and circumstances.\u00a0 If the accomplice has particular motivation to lie, this will undermine the credibility of his evidence.<\/p>\n<p>The Court of Criminal Appeal has overturned cases where witnesses with criminal records have been offered immunity in return for giving evidence on the basis that the evidence is insufficient.\u00a0 This was on the basis that the evidence was insufficiently credible to allow a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n<p>In the present context, an accomplice is a person who is liable to be prosecuted as a co-accused or an accessory for his participation in the crimes charged.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Accomplice_Evidence_Issues\"><\/span>Accomplice Evidence Issues<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>It is for the Judge to determine whether there is evidence sufficient to be considered by a jury to implicate a particular witness as a participant or an accomplice for the purpose of the crime.<\/p>\n<p>The terms of the warning are within the discretion of the Judge.\u00a0 There is no prescribed form of warning.\u00a0 It should point out to the jury that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice but they are free to do so if satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n<p>The State has operated an informal witness security programme arising principally out of gangland and drug-related crime.\u00a0 The evidence of a protected witness may be unreliable apart from the issue of accomplice evidence.\u00a0 The Courts are likely to require a warning be given by evidence in the same manner as accomplice evidence.<\/p>\n<p>The Criminal Justice Act, allows a witness to give evidence by video link.\u00a0 They also allowed that the possibility of pre-trial statements being admissible where the witness fails or refuses to give evidence at the trial.<\/p>\n<!--themify_builder_content-->\n<div id=\"themify_builder_content-1603\" data-postid=\"1603\" class=\"themify_builder_content themify_builder_content-1603 themify_builder tf_clear\">\n    <\/div>\n<!--\/themify_builder_content-->\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Requirement for Corroboration Historically, corroboration was required in a range of circumstances.\u00a0 The circumstances in which it was required have reduced significantly in the last 30 years.\u00a0 In some cases, it was not permissible to convict without corroboration.\u00a0 In other cases, a warning as to the dangers of conviction without corroboration was to be given [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[69],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1603"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1827,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603\/revisions\/1827"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}