Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
CORROBORATION
The term simply refers to independent testimony which tends
to support or confirm other evidence already adduced at the
trial as true and reliable.
Progretic evidence is evidence which tends to
e.g. in a charge of theft, other evidence is given that the theft
was seen breaking into a house to steal and was caught with
stolen property, in murder, the weapon used is such other
evidence
There are certain types of cases in which court will not convict
an accused person or will not return judgment in ones favour
unless evidence being adduced is corroborated.
Therefore it is the prosecution that has the burden to prove the
independent testimonies. In the case of R v Baskerville 1961 2
KB 658, the judge defined corroborating evidence as such
evidence corroboration must be independent testimony which
affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him to
the crime. It is evidence which implicates him and which
confirms whit some material particular not only that the crime
has been committed but also that it is the prisoner who
committed the crime. It is supportive evidence.
In that case, Baskerville was charged with gross indecency
with two boys. The only evidence of his charge was evidence
of the two boys but they were accomplice in the crime and it is
a judicial requirement the judicial Shall be corroborated before
it can be used to convict the accused. The accused appealed on
ground that the evidence of the two boys had not been
corroborated.
In R v kilbourne, it was held that corroborative evidence is
evidence which tends to confirm other evidence produced at
the trial.
It is additional evidence which renders it probable that the
story of the witness is true and that it is reasonably safe to act
on it.
It is independent and affects the accused by connecting or
tending to connect him with the crime and confirming in some
material particular not only that the crime has been committed
but also that it is the accused who committed it.
Corroborative evidence need not corroborate the whole
testimony produced at the trial. It is enough if it corroborates a
material particular of such testimony e.g. in a rape case, a
medical report by a doctor stating that it examined anyone of
the parties can be taken as corroborative evidence. Such other
examples may be torn garments, scratched body fore-instance.
Therefore the main elements of corroborating evidence are;
Evidence of a child
If a child gives sworn testimony on oath, it should be
corroborated. In Oloo s/o Gaii V R 1960 EA 172, a judge
relied on evidence of a 12 year old child to convict the child for
murder. He did not warn himself of the need to corroborate the
childs evidence and the accused appealed on this ground. It
was held that the judge erred to rely on the uncorroborated
evidence of the child. The conviction was set aside.
The rationale for this corroboration is that children are
subjective and easy to coach. They do not understand the duty
of saying the truth. Their power for memory is small, as well as
their observation. Therefore they are not reliable.
As a court, if one wants to rely on evidence of a child, a voire
Dire has to be conducted. It is a trial with in a trial of a child to
test whether it understands and appreciates the nature of the
case.
of
cases
which
require
In Roria v R 1969 EA 583, the trial court held that the judge
should warn himself against using the identification evidence
of a single witness.
In Nabudere v Uganda 1979 HCB, the court laid down three
conditions which a judge should look for before relying on the
evidence of one witness who is allegedly to have identified that
accused when the conditions of visual identification were
difficult.
The court should ask itself if there was enough light and
what sort of light.
Whether the glace on the suspect by the witness, was a
mere fleeting glance or a glance for long e.g. seeing the
7
COMPETENCE
WITNESSES
AND
COMPELLABILITY
OF
Competency
The general rule is that all people are competent to testify
unless they suffer from some disability e.g. if they are young ,
senile, insane,
which state renders them incapable of
Dumb/deaf witnesses
These of themselves do not render incompetence unless the
witness is not capable of understanding questions put to them
or giving rational answers to the questions. So they can write
8
Evidence of spouses
Spouses are competent to testify to each other but are not
compellable. Section 120 EA
Under the law of privilege, confidential information between a
couple during the subsistence of their marriage is privileged
unless the fact in issue concerns domestic violence, incest,
adultery, rape, indecent Assault
Compellability of witnesses
The general rule is that all persons are compellable to testify on
matters asked them even if such matters tend to incriminated
them- section 131.
Although there are exceptions to the general rule above in
public policy and children
Exceptions;
Privilege refers to an extra ordinary right or power of comity
attached to a person by virtue of their status for example the
president, ambassador. Therefore competent witnesses are
excluded from testifying on the ground of privilege.
Types of privilege
10
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Concept of a document
Under section 2(b) of the evidence Act, a document is any
matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of
letters figures or marks or by more than one of those means
intended to be used or which way be used for the purpose of
recording that matter. It includes all documents produced for
courts inspection.
Osborne defines a document as something on which things are
printed or inscribed and which gives information. This is
anything written capable of giving evidence therefore a writing
on stone, t-shits, cds, recordings of music, dvds are all
documents as long as the accuracy of recordings can be proved.
In the era of technological advancement, mails, whatsapps,
blogs, tweets are all documents
REF: in the case Salan dean v R (1966) EA 272
Therefore, the form that a document takes keeps changing with
advancement with society.
Documentary evidence constitutes real and testimonial
evidence. Real evidence is that one supplied by material
objects produced for the court to inspect
12
-First rule
-secondary rule
certified copies
copies made from original by mechanical process
copies made or compared with original
The party must offer the best evidence of the document i.e. it
must produce the evidence itself because primary evidence is
the best evidence.
14
-Third rule
This consists of the rule of the parole evidence rule that no
extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the contents of the
document except the document itself.
15
16