CORROBORATION IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
INTRODUCTION
The cornerstone of any legal
argument is the evidence presented, and at the heart of evidence lies the
principle of corroboration. This concept, essential in the law of evidence,
dictates the need for supporting evidence to validate a primary piece of testimony
or fact. In the case of, Nsofu v The
People (1973) ZR 287, the Supreme court defined corroboration as “the
independent evidence which tends to confirm that the witness is telling the
truth when she says that the offence was committed and that it was the accused
who committed it.” Corroboration may sometimes be referred to as supporting
evidence which basically means that it is an additional evidence that supports
a statement or a piece of evidence presented in court, strengthening its
credibility. This article will discuss why the principle of corroboration is
necessary, its rationale, as well as corroboration under statute and cases
where a warning is needed.
Its cardinal for each one of us
to understand why corroboration is necessary during court proceedings.
The rationale of corroboration
is that, sometimes a conviction cannot be obtained without corroboration, this
is to guard against the danger of relying on unreliable evidence or false
testimonies which can potentially lead to wrongful convictions or unjust
outcomes.
Corroboration
required by statute.
Corroboration by statute demands
that there may not be a conviction without corroboration of evidence. For
example, Section 107 of the Penal Code, chapter
87 of the Laws of Zambia (hereinafter, the Penal Code) requires that
offence of perjury and subornation of perjury, the evidence of one witness as
to the falsity of any statement of the accused should be corroborated.
Additionally, Section 140 of Penal Code,
relating to the offence of procuration states that a person may not be
convicted of such an offence based on the evidence of a single witness unless
such witness be corroborated in a material particular. These two examples just
further highlight that certain evidence requires additional support to be
considered valid in court and that a single piece of evidence isn’t enough to
convict someone of a crime.
Cases
where a warning is needed.
As discussed earlier on, it is
not mandatory to have all evidence corroborated, in that a judge may convict
solely based on the uncorroborated evidence of an accused however, it is
necessary that a warning on the dangers of convicting solely based on such
evidence is given before a conviction as a rule of law. A warning is then
needed in such cases of:
1. Evidence
of an accomplice,
2. Evidence
of a witness with an interest to serve,
3. Sexual
offences.
Evidence
of an accomplice.
It is mandatory that a judge
must warn himself of the dangers of convicting based on the evidence of an accomplice
to the crime, although he may do so after warning himself of such dangers, this
warning or direction must be shown on record including his reasons for
convicting. In the case of R v
Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658, provides the rationale for doing so, where it
was said that an accomplice has inside knowledge and it would be hard to judge
their credibility based on cross examination as to the order of events as the
only lie he would be telling is as to the identity of the principal offender in
any case even where he is no longer a co-accused. This case was further affirmed in the case of
Machobene v The People (1972) ZR 101
where it was held that as a rule of practice a judge must give a warning of the
dangers of convicting solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence of an
accomplice or of a witness with their own interest to serve, this has been
stated to now be a rule of law. In the case of Shamwana and 7 Others v
People [1985] ZMSC 9, the judge considered that in some cases, accomplices
of a class may be mutually corroborative where they give independent evidence
of separate incidents and where the circumstances are such as to exclude the
danger of a jointly fabricated story.
Evidence
of a witness with an interest to serve.
When we look at this category of
evidence of a witness with an interest to serve, a warning is equally needed
and this section also includes people that may fall short of being an
accomplice but have a motivate to fabricate evidence. The case of George Msupi v The People (1978) ZR 271,
will help us better understand this. In this case the witnesses that were
giving evidence were at the crime scene but failed to call the police and
report and because of this it gave them motive to fabricate. The court further
stated that since there was no warning given, the conviction was quashed where
it falls within the proviso,( the proviso sates that conviction is upheld if
there exists other evidence corroborating, where it is shown that a jury
sitting on the safe facts having been directed properly would come to the same
conclusion), the court held that it did not fall under the proviso because the
other evidence available constituted mere circumstantial evidence in which case
inferences could be drawn.
Sexual
offences.
When dealing with cases
involving sexual offences, the court is required to warn itself of the dangers
of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the complaint, this because of
the nature of the offence where sometimes complaints are motivated by spite or
even sexual frustration. Usually in rape case the alleged act of sexual
intercourse by the accused and the question of consent by the complaint is
entirely based on the words of the victim as against that of the accused, if
the court fails to warns to itself the conviction is liable to be quashed.
The case of Ackson Zimba v The People [1980] ZMSC 23, in this case was
appellant was convicted of rape, he did have unlawful carnal knowledge with the
victim without her consent. The evidence against the appellant was that he was
alleged to have seized the woman in the bush and to have her raped and that
during that time she sustained scratches on her legs. That witness did not
corroborate the evidence as to the scratches nor did the medical report refer
to any external injuries to the compliant at all. In this case there was a
complete lack of corroboration in the case, the appeal was allowed, the
conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside. This case shows the
importance of corroboration in sexual offence to a point where a conviction
will be quashed if corroboration does not take place.
The options that are available
to judge in an event that evidence is not corroborated is that:
·
He may acquit the case.
·
He can convict and illustrate that there is
something more which eradicates the dangers of falsity.
·
Convict on the strength of other corroborative
evidence, being independent of the uncorroborative evidence and sufficient to
lead to a conviction.
What then amounts to sufficient
corroboration? Well in most instances corroboration will be in the form of
various pieces of circumstantial evidence which taken separately will not be
sufficient but however conjunctively will amount to corroboration.
In essence, corroboration stands as a cornerstone of credible storytelling and reliable information. The process of corroboration is more than just a verification method it is a commitment to truth and precision. Through the careful collection and assessment of different sources we not only validate our own understanding but also foster a culture of critical thinking. May we all embrace the power of corroboration to ensure that our insights are both insightful and thoroughly supported.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
LEGISLATION.
The Penal Code, Chapter 87 of
the Laws of Zambia.
CASE LAW.
Ackson Zimba v The People [1980]
ZMSC 23.
George Msupi v The People (1978)
Z.R 271.
Machobene v The People (1972)
Z.R. 101
Nsofu v The People (1973) Z.R.
287.
R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658.
Shamwana and 7 Others v People
[1985] ZMSC 9.
This Article is brought to you by:
About Author:
