CORROBORATING EVIDENCE (CORROBORATION)

The word corroboration originated from the Latin word ‘corroborare’ which means to
strengthen or confirm. It connotes support or confirmation, and indicates, in relation to the law
of evidence, that certain evidence is confirmation or support of a claim or evidence through
independent, authoritative, and credible evidence. Therefore, corroboration is tending to
confirm some fact of which other evidence is given.

To be capable of amounting to corroboration evidence must not only be relevant and

admissible but also credible and independent. In Uganda v George Wilson Simbwa. It was held
that corroboration affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime.
In other words it must be evidence which implicates him, which confirms in some material
particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed but also that the
defendant committed it. As seen from the above holding, it was stated in Ntambala Fred V
Uganda that corroborative evidence is evidence from other sources which supports the
testimony of the complinant and connects or tends to connect the accused person to the
commission of the crime.

Corroborating evidence is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already

supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming and strengthening the position. In
law, (Corroboration in Scott’s Law) refers to the requirement in some jurisdictions such as
Scotland, that any evidence adduced be backed by at least one other source. For example; if
you swear before a judge that you saw a suspect in front of a store at a certain time, the
security video might be the corroborating evidence to your evidence.

Corroborative evidence can be defined as that evidence which tends to support or confirm
other evidence already given in court and it has to be from an independent source. Evidence
that is itself corroborative cannot support other evidence because both need to be support.
The case R V Kilbourne discusses what amounts to corrobarration.

The case R V Baskervile. B had been charged with acts of gross indecency with two boys. The
only direct evidence of the act was the evidence of the two boys. At trial it occurred that the
two boys were accomplices to the act. Court held that their evidence had to be corroborated
and defined corroboration as evidence which in some material particular, tends to show that
the accused committed the crime charged.

Lord Reading stated that evidence in corroboration must be independent testimony which
affects the accused connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. It must be evidence
which implicates him, meaning that the evidence which confirms in some material particular,
not only the evidence that the crime has been committed, but that the accused committed it.
The decision was held in the case of R V Manilal Purohit 1949 9 EACA 58, that Corroboration,
which should be looked for, is some additional evidence rendering it probable that;-

-the evidence of the witness is true and it is reasonably safe to act upon it.

-that it must be independent evidence which affects the accused by connecting him or tending
to connect him with the crime confirming in some material particular, not only the evidence
that the crime has been committed, but also, that the accused committed it however, it is not
necessary to have confirmation of all circumstances of the crime. Corroboration of some
material particular, tending to implicate the accused is enough.

It can be noted that corroborative evidence;-

 Must be independent testimony R v BASKERVILLE

 Should connect the accused to the commission of the offence
 It needn’t corroborate the whole story R v Manilal

The guiding rules relating to corroboration as derived from the R vs Baskerville (Supra) are
that:-

1. It is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation in every detail of the
crime related by the accomplice. It is sufficient if there is a confirmation as to a material
circumstance of the crime.

2. The confirmation by independent evidence must be of the identity of the accused in

relation to the crime, ie confirmation in some fact which goes to fix the guilt of the
particular person charged by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. In
other words, there must be confirmation in some material particular that not only has the
crime been committed but that the accused committed it.

3. The corroboration must be by independent testimony, that is by some evidence other

than that of the accomplice and therefore one accomplice cannot corroborate the other.

4. The corroboration need not be by direct evidence that the accused committed the crime',
it may be circumstantial.
The Rationale for Corroboration. R V Kilbourne

 Courts of law want to ensure reliability of the evidence that has been given. Court feels
cautious about certain pieces of evidence like where some of the witnesses are interested
parties for example the accomplice and the accused.
 There are some offences where it is rare to have direct witnesses apart from the
complainant for example sexual offenses. Most cases the only witness is the complainant
and at trial, it becomes the complaint’s word against the accused’s, thus court needs
corroboration to test the reliability of the evidence.

The general rule in section 133 of the Evidence Act provides that subject to the provisions of
any other law in force, no particular number of witnesses shall in any case, be required for the
proof of any fact. However, the requirement for corroboration is an exception to the general
rule because it permits more witnesses. The very provision creates these exceptions subject to
any other law in force.

Situations where corroboration is required by court where there is a statutory provision.

A number of statutes make corroboration a necessity in certain circumstances. The effect of
the requirement is that court must always get corroboration and as such, cannot convict
without it.
 Penal Code Act, there are a number of offences where the evidence must be corroborated
before a conviction can be made e.g. treason, perjury, rape.
 The traffic and road safety act, e.g. over speeding.
 Children’s Act, e.g. petition for a declaration of parentage; unsworn evidence of a child of
tender years must be corroborated. Section 12 of the Oath’s Act requires all evidence in
court to be sworn. However the Magistrate’s Court Act and the Trial on Indictment Act
create exceptions, although in judicial practice whether or not the evidence is sworn, it must
be corroborated.

Corroboration as a requirement of judicial practice.

There are a number of circumstances of judicial prudence. Here the conviction on this might
not be so fatal compared to the rest, as court may convict on uncorrobated evidence. Court has
the discretion to decide if the evidence is reliable, but must always caution itself of the
requirement for corroboration. These categories include;-

Accomplice evidence governed by section 132 of the evidence act. It states, an accomplice
shall be a competent witness against an accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely
because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. There is no
requirement of this by statutory provisions but courts have seen that it is evidence of the worst
kind and must be corroborated.

The rationale for corroboration of accomplice evidence as given in the Handbook for
Magistrates;

In Rwalinda V R,the necessity for corroboration of evidence of an accomplice witness appears

to stem from the perceived character of the witness.

An accomplice witness has been described in diverse term in various authorities. He has been
called ‘a most unworthy friend, if at all, having bargained for his immunity he must prove his
worthiness for credibility’. The testimony of a man of the very lowest character who throws to
the wolves his erstwhile associates and friends in order to save his own skin and who is a
criminal and has purchased his liberty by betrayal.’

- Accomplices are usually interested parties and they are generally always infamous witnesses
as a result of which their evidence is regarded as untrustworthy by courts. The reason is that
the accomplice is likely to tell lies in order to shift guilt from himself to play down the part that
he took commission in the offence.

- As a company; a partner in crime with the accused, an accused is not likely to value his oath

- If a company usually gives evidence because of the hope or promise to be pardoned or

treated leuiently by the prosecution.

-If an accomplice usually gives evidence because of the hope or promise to be promise to be
pardoned or treated leuiently by the prosecution.

-The other reasons given for the requirement of corroboration of an accomplice witness is that
an accomplice is likely to swear falsely in order to shift the guilt from himself.

-Being a participant in the crime he is an immoral person. Because he gives evidence under a
promise of a pardon or in expectation of it he may not tell the whole truth but may seek to
implicate others.

The evidence of an accomplice therefore is always regarded as tainted and as such unreliable
hence the need for corroboration.

2. - Sexual Offences

The evidence of the complainants must be corroborated in these as a rule of judicial practice. In
East Africa the rule was laid down in CHILA V R 1967 EA 722. It was that the judge should warn
assessors and himself of the dangers of acting upon the uncorroborated evidence of the
complainants. He may not convict in the absence of corroboration if he is satisfied that there
has been no failure of justice.
Rationale for requiring corroboration in sexual offences.

Sexual cases are particularly subject to the danger of deliberately false charges resulting from
sexual beurosis, jealousy, spite or simply a girl’s refusal to admit that she consented to an act of
which she is now ashamed, this according to Glanville Williams.

Corroboration in sexual offenses constitutes;- medical reports or any other evidence e.g. state
of the complainant, distressed condition e.g torn clothes, beaten body etc. If the complainant
immediately reported the assault it can be a part of the corroboration. Courts have held that
the best corroborative evidence is medical evidence, as to whether or not there was
defilement, rape, etc. Sometimes a semen test is done and if there are deposits in the
complainant, court may use this as corroborative evidence. In Telesfora Alex V R. It is
mandatory, especially when the accused is in custody, to submit to medical examination. In
NGOBI V R 1953 20 EACA 56, A small girl was defiled and in course was also infected with an
STD. the accused denied any knowledge of the child. Medical examination was done and found
the child to be infected with the same strain of STD, as the accused. Court held that medical
evidence was good corroborative evidence that he had defiled the girl.

3. DYING DECLARATION,

These must be corroborated as a matter of judicial prudence. Court said in Sabiiti Vicent V
Uganda that a dying declaration is admissible evidence but caution must be taken when relying
on it to convict because such evidence lacks cross examination. The circumstances under which
the dying declaration was made must be examined so as to determine whether the declarant
was able to see the accused.

In Uganda v Alfred Oyaka, court held that the law regarding dying declarations is that to base
conviction from it, the declaration must be satisfactorily corroborated. Corroboration is an
independent form of proof evidence which confirms the complicity of an issue of an offense.
Medical evidence showed that the deceased suffered a raptured uterus and on the evidence of
the doctor showed that the rapture could have been caused by violence or trauma on the
abdomen on being hurt. This was consistent with the violence meted out by the accused to the
deceased. This evidence corroborated to the dying declaration.

3b. Confessions against co-accused;

The once accepted axiom that no innocent person would confess to a crime has proven to be
false. Because of this, the prosecution must demonstrate that a confession is, in fact,
trustworthy. The most convincing evidence to demonstrate the truthfulness of a confession is
corroboration.

Tuwamoi V Uganda,-Retracted and repudiated confessions were differentiated in the above

case . retracted confession occurs when the accused person admits that he made the
statements recorded but now seeks to take back what he said generally on the grounds that he
had been forced or induced to make the statement. That statement was not made voluntarily.
A repudiated statement is one which the accused avers that he never made. It is a well-
established rule of prudence that court shall not act when a retracted or repudiated confession
has not been corroborated in some material particulars or is not satisfied about its truth.

One part of a confession simply cannot be used to corroborate another part, even with
respect to the corpus delicti ; a confession “cannot fortify its own truth” and multiple
confessions by an accused cannot corroborate each other.

4. IDENTIFICATION,

Court requires corroboration in all cases, especially in the identification of a single witness
under difficult conditions. E.g. Robbery at night. A conviction based solely on visual
identification evidence invariably causes a degree of uneasiness because such evidence can
give rise to miscarriages of justice. There is always the possibility that a witness though honest
may be mistaken. For this reason, the courts have over the years evolved rules of practice to
minimize the danger that innocent people may be wrongly convicted. It will be observed that
there is no requirement in law or practice for corroboration. This position was stated in the
case Addulla Bin Wendo V R, there have sometimes been references to the need for
corroboration where the only evidence connecting the accused with the offence is the
identification of a single witness. Where the case against an accused depends wholly or
substantially on the correctness of the identification or identifications. The reason for the
special caution is that there is a possibility that a mistaken witness can be a convincing one and
that even a number of such witnesses can be mistaken. The judge should then examine closely
the circumstances in which identification can be made.

5. EVIDENCE OF A CHILD OF TENDER YEARS,

According to law, the unsworn evidence of a child of tender years requires corroboration. It is a
requirement in judicial practice as seen in Oloo S/O Gai V r 1960 EA 87, the judge relied on the
evidence of a 12 year old child to convict the appellant for murder. He did not warn himself of
the need to corroborate the child’s evidence. The court of Appeal held that it was erroneous
for the judge to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of the child, even if it had been sworn
evidence.

This is more so if the child is a prosecution witness. According to Glandville, the rationale for
this is that children can easily be coached, therefore court must treat their evidence cautiously,
children are impressionable and susceptible; they are easily fooled, sometimes live in a make-
believe world; they are ego-centric and only slowly learn the duty to tell the truth. A child’s
power of observation and reasoning is far below that of adult therefore their evidence must be
approached with great care.

Inconsistencies and contradictions

The law on inconsistencies and discrepancies in a prosecution case is that grave inconsistencies
unless satisfactorily explained would usually result in the evidence of the witness being
rejected but minor inconsistencies would not have that effect unless the trial judge thought
they point at deliberate truthfulness. In Opoka v Uganda 1991, once a prosecution witness has
been shown to have told lies against the accused, the evidence of such a witness must be
treated with caution and should not to be believed unless it is corroborated.

CONCLUSION.

Corroboration is in two parts. As a question of law or fact. The extent of corroboration required
in each case is provided by the statutes and except as no further corroboration is required as a
matter of law. In practice there are some cases in which because of some inherent risk of
unreliability, the court must warn itself of the dangers of acting on uncorroborated evidence.
The requirement of corroboration of circumstantial evidence in certain situations does not
mean that it is weak evidence; circumstantial evidence is as good as direct evidence provided
that all the requirement of the law is met. The purpose of the law and practice in situation is to
ensure that justice is done.