Corroboration Essay Flashcards
(30 cards)
What was the historical rationale for mandatory corroboration warnings in sexual offence trials?
The historical suspicion of sexual offence complainants stems from Sir Matthew Hale’s statement that such accusations are ‘easily to be made, hard to be proved, and harder to be defended.’ Courts feared wrongful convictions based solely on uncorroborated testimony, leading to the development of a mandatory corroboration warning rule under common law.
What legislative provision replaced the mandatory rule with a discretionary one in Ireland?
Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. It states: ‘It shall be for the judge to decide in his discretion… whether the jury should be given the warning… It shall not be necessary to use any particular form of words.’
What key principle did People (DPP) v Reid [1993] establish post-1990 Act?
Keane J confirmed that while the corroboration warning is no longer mandatory, trial judges may still consider it necessary depending on the evidence—particularly where it is uncorroborated and central to the prosecution’s case.
What was the significance of People (DPP) v C.C. [2012]?
The Court upheld the judge’s refusal to give a corroboration warning. Murray J reaffirmed that such warnings are no longer required by law or practice, and no improper exercise of discretion was shown.
What factors justified a warning in People (DPP) v Molloy (1995)?
Flood J considered the complainant’s mental disability, testimonial inconsistencies, and the unusual domestic context. Despite the discretionary regime, he held that a warning was prudent due to the complainant’s vulnerability and unreliable testimony. The conviction was quashed due to unsafe jury reasoning.
What are the main principles from R v Makanjuola [1995] 3 All ER 730 regarding judicial warnings?
The mandatory warning rule is abrogated. Warnings are at the judge’s discretion based on the quality and reliability of the evidence. Warnings are not required simply because the witness is a sexual offence complainant or accomplice. Warnings should be context-specific, not legal set-pieces. Attempts to reinstate old corroboration rules are to be deprecated.
How did Irish courts adopt Makanjuola?
In People (DPP) v JEM [2001] 4 IR 385, Denham J approved the Makanjuola approach, noting that although UK Section 32(1) and Ireland’s Section 7 differ textually, both share the same principle: judicial discretion must guide the need for a warning based on case-specific facts.
What was the error identified in DPP v MK [2005]?
The judge failed to distinguish between evidence corroborating the occurrence of the assault and evidence connecting the accused to the assault. This confusion could have misled the jury. The Court advised pre-charge discussions between judge and counsel on whether to issue a warning.
What is the academic critique of discretionary warnings?
Critics argue the shift from mandatory to discretionary warnings risks inconsistent application and could reintroduce judicial bias under the guise of caution. Some judges may still operate on outdated assumptions about the unreliability of sexual offence complainants.
What did the High Court of Australia decide in Longman v R (1989)?
The Court held that the legislative removal of corroboration requirements signifies that complainants are not a suspect class. Therefore, issuing a general warning on the danger of convicting based solely on their evidence is inappropriate and undermines legislative intent.
What does People (AG) v Cradden [1955] IR 130 say about warning strength?
Maguire CJ held that the strength of a warning must be proportionate to the evidential risk: ‘The degree and gravity of the warning called for may vary with the degree and gravity of the risk involved.’
What are the potential risks if a judge fails to properly instruct a jury on corroboration?
Jurors may misunderstand the probative value of certain evidence, confuse confirmation of an assault with confirmation of who committed it, and misinterpret absence of corroboration as irrelevant. This can render a trial unsafe.
What is the doctrine of recent complaint and how is it different from corroboration?
Recent complaint is an exception to the rule against prior consistent statements. It allows evidence of a complaint made soon after the incident to support the complainant’s credibility, but it is not corroboration.
What are the four requirements for admissibility under recent complaint doctrine?
Must relate to a sexual offence, made at the first reasonable opportunity, voluntarily made, and consistent with trial testimony.
How should judges handle the discretion post-MK and Makanjuola?
Use discretion cautiously and rationally. Base the warning on demonstrable unreliability, not stereotypes. Consult with counsel prior to summing up. Tailor any warning to the evidential context of the case.
What was the traditional rule regarding corroboration in sexual offence cases?
A mandatory corroboration warning had to be given because sexual offence complainants were viewed as inherently unreliable.
Which historical figure expressed skepticism about sexual offence complainants?
Sir Matthew Hale – he said such accusations are “easily to be made and hard to be proved and harder to be defended…
What legislation changed the mandatory corroboration rule in Ireland?
Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990.
What does Section 7 of the 1990 Act state?
The judge may, at their discretion and considering the evidence, choose to give a warning to the jury. No set form of words is required.
What did People (DPP) v Reid [1993] confirm?
Judges may still give a corroboration warning at their discretion, even after Section 7.
In People (DPP) v C.C. [2012], why was the appeal rejected?
Because a corroboration warning is no longer mandatory, and the judge did not improperly exercise discretion.
What did People (DPP) v Molloy emphasize about discretion?
In cases with testimonial inconsistencies or vulnerable complainants, a warning may still be prudent despite the discretionary rule.
What UK case is influential in this area?
R v Makanjuola [1995] – it laid out principles for when warnings should be given, rejecting automatic warnings for sexual offence complainants.
