The defendant complained that the judge had failed to direct the jury about the dangers of relying upon the evidence of witnesses who, though not co-defendants, had their own conflicting interests. They also said that corroborative evidence should only have been accepted to support directly some specific evidence of an accomplice.
Held: A formal accomplice direction was not required. It was enough to warn the jurors of the dangers. Evidence whose nature was corroborative need not be directly related to evidence given by an accomplice. ‘While we in no way wish to detract from the obligation upon a judge to advise a jury to proceed with caution where there is material to suggest that a witness’s evidence may be tainted by an improper motive, and the strength of the evidence must vary according to the facts of the case, we cannot accept that there is any obligation to give the accomplice warning with all that entails, when it is common ground that there is no basis for suggesting that the witness is a participant or in any way involved in the crime the subject matter of the trial.’
Judges:
Ackner LJ
Citations:
[1982] CLY 563, [1982] 1 WLR 461, [1982] 1 All ER 807
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Regina v Mullins 1848
. .
Applied – Rex v Baskerville 1916
. .
Explained – Regina v Prater CCA 1960
Where one defendant gave evidence incriminating his co-defendant, just as in cases where an accomplice gave evidence for the prosecution, a full corroboration warning was desirable. . .
Explained – Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1954
Half a dozen youths engaged in a fist fight with another group, but one of their number suddenly produced a knife and stabbed one of their opponents to death. One of the prosecution witnesses was a youth named Lawson. He gave evidence of an oral . .
Cited – Regina v Kilbourne HL 1973
The respondent was convicted of sexual offences against two groups of boys. The trial judge directed the jury that they would be entitled to take into account the uncorroborated evidence of the second group as supporting evidence given by the first . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Spencer; Regina v Smails HL 24-Jul-1986
The defendants were nurses employed at Rampton secure hospital accused of assaults on patients. The witnesses against them had been inmates. They complained that the judge had failed to direct the jurors about the dangers of relying upon their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Evidence
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.191972
