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.


[1960] CLY 671, [1960] 1 All ER 298, [1960] 2 QB 464


England and Wales

Cited by:

ExplainedRegina v Beck CACD 1982
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 . .
CitedRegina v Knowlden and Knowlden CACD 1983
The court set out warnings for the jury when considering evidence from a co-accused. The rule in Prater was not a rule of law but ultimately in the discretion of the judge: and that ‘the customary clear warning to examine the evidence of each . .
CitedRegina v Cheema CACD 5-Sep-1993
There is no rule requiring full a corroboration direction to be given for a co-defendant’s evidence to be admitted. The Court of Appeal recommended a review of law on corroboration of a witness’s evidence. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘The rule of practice . .
CitedPetkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.244806