#10518 - Corroboration And Warnings - Criminal Procedure and Evidence

Lord Taylor CJ in Makanjuola laid down rule that trial judge may have to delivery jury warning cautioning them from relying to readily upon the witnesses’ testimony, the content of which depends on extent of risk.

• Law used to have strict corroboration rules, sometimes going as far as to require witness evidence to be corroborated and in other cases just requiring direction.

• Widespread criticism of corroboration requirements. Led to unfairness, discrimination and confusion.

• Old rules eventually abolished.

Now English law has no principle that you cannot convict on a single piece of uncorroborated evidence.

(Exceptions in Perjury Act 1911, s13 (no conviction of perjury offences solely on uncorroborated evidence) and Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984).

Mankanjuola Directions

Court of Appeal in Mankanjuola said judge retains discretion of whether or not to offer directions:

• Wherever matter arises at trial, should be discussed in absence of jury first.

• Otherwise, v broad principles. Depends on the content and manner of the witness’s evidence, circumstances of the case and the issues raised.

• No set formula

Walker

• Girl complained to police that mother’s boyfriend had been having intercourse with her. Later retracted complaint and then made it again. Judge did not refer to this in summing up.

• Ebsworth J – situation “Cried” out for application of Mankanjuola principles.

  • However Lord Taylor CJ said CA would only interfere with these decisions where the judge’s decision was wholly unreasonable.

Cell Confessions

Admissions made by one prisoner to another during joint detention:

• Pringle v R: No fixed rules requiring judges to deliver particular form of warning, but Lord Hope noted the potential for miscarriages of justice here because there can be improper motives (e.g. immunity?).

  • If such indications are present, judge should draw jury’s attention to them and their significance.

• Reiterated by Lord Hope again in Benedetto v R.

The Lucas direction is required to guide jury where a defendant is shown to have told lies.

• Stops them from jumping to conclusions

• Complex rules in this area – better to analyse each individual case.

• Burge and Pegg: Kennedy LJ warned against unnecessary recourse by judges to Lucas directions because they add complexity etc.

Burge and Pegg – CA outlined 4 categories of case where Lucas direction commonly called for:

1. D relies upon false alibi

2. Where judge uses Mankanjuola direction in relation to particular suspect witness’s testimony and the judge says Ds lies might serve to confirm the evidence of the suspect witness

3. Prosecution seeking to show that something D said out of court was lie, and relies on the lie as evidence of guilt in relation to the charges laid against D.

4. Judge reasonably envisages real danger that jury will be tempted to draw inference unless warned not to do so.

Not all inconsistencies need direction.

• Minor inconsistencies in past/previous accounts do not require it

• Simply difference in argument between pros/defence definitely doesn’t call for it.

• There should be risk that the jury will treat evidence of guilt

Beck:

• Charge of conspiracy to defraud. Co-D plead guilty and gave evidence against the defendant, as did directors of the finance company who were potential accomplices. The jury were not given an accomplice direction in relation to this evidence and convicted D.

  • D argued on appeal tat the directors had a purpose of serving their own interests in giving evidence (covering up false representations made to them) and jury should have been given warning of danger of acting on uncorroborated evidence

• Held –

  • Accomplices corroboration warning from Davies v DPP and Prater was seen as qualified decision in Whitaker.

  • Prater comment that it is desirable in cases where someone might have their own purpose to serve that warning against uncorroborated evidence should be given = related to cases where witness might be participant.

  • No basis for accomplice warning where no suggestion that witness was participant.

• Commentary:

  • Ridiculous to have general rule to oblige judge to give corroboration warning wherever witness could have reason to give false/misleading evidence.

  • Accomplices rule is exception to general rule

  • Discretionary in other cases. Might be desirable where (a) witnesses may be involved in some way with the crime charged and (b) those who might not be involved but, by giving honest testimony, show themselves to have been involved in unrelated offences

• Whenever someone has obvious motive to lie you can give corroboration according to Beck.

What should be included in a Lucas direction:

• Before they proceed must be sure D told the relevant lie

• If sure D lied, ask why he lied.

  • Remind them that people lie for innocent reasons –bolster true defence, protection, panic/confusion etc....