Suspect evidence
Introduction
Certain types of evidence can be admitted in court but are considered suspect. This means that there is a risk that they are untrue or incorrect.
Safeguards have been put in place to protect people from being convicted based on suspect evidence. In certain situations there must be corroborative evidence in addition to the suspect evidence in order to convict someone. Corroborative evidence is additional evidence which connects the accused to the crime.
Corroboration warnings are also used to protect people from being convicted based on suspect evidence. A corroboration warning is a warning the judge gives the jury, which highlights that it is dangerous to convict someone based on suspect evidence without any corroborative evidence.
Mandatory corroboration
Corroborative evidence is additional evidence. It is evidence in a case which:
- Implicates the accused in the crime. It must show that the accused is guilty of the offence.
- Is admissible and credible
- Is independent, as in, it comes from a source other than the witness whose evidence needs to be corroborated
You must have corroboration evidence to convict someone of the following offences:
- Committing treason or helping someone who has committed treason
- Committing an offence under the Road Traffic Acts which requires proof of the speed you were driving (unless this evidence was established by a watch, electronic or photographic apparatus)
- Committing perjury
A judge must direct the jury to acquit the accused if there is no corroborative evidence in these cases.
Corroboration warning
If a judge needs to give a jury a corroboration warning about a case they will do this at the end of the trial. The corroboration warning points out to the jury that it is dangerous to convict the accused based on suspect evidence without any corroborative evidence. However, if the jury is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, they can convict without corroborative evidence.
Where a corroborative warning must be given
Accomplice evidence
An accomplice is a person who was also involved in an alleged crime. If an accomplice is giving evidence against the accused, the court will treat this as suspect evidence. This is because an accomplice may have a lot to gain by lying to pin the blame on the accused.
To protect the accused from being unfairly convicted based on accomplice evidence, the judge will sum up the case at the end of the trial and must give the jury a corroboration warning.
Confession evidence
A confession is a voluntary statement made by the accused implicating themselves in the alleged offence. Confession evidence is considered suspect evidence and the judge must give the jury a corroboration warning in these cases.
Where corroboration is desirable
Visual identification evidence
The court must give the jury a warning about the dangers of accepting visual identification evidence to ensure that they don’t incorrectly interpret this evidence.
Corroboration warning at the discretion of the judge
Evidence given by the alleged victim of a sexual offence
Traditionally, the evidence of an alleged victim of a sexual offence was treated as suspect and the judge had to give the jury a corroboration warning.
However, since 1990, the corroboration warning is no longer automatic in these cases and the judge can decide if the warning is necessary in each particular case.
Children's evidence
Traditionally, children's evidence was treated as suspect and the judge had to give the jury a corroboration warning.
However, since 1992, the corroboration warning is no longer automatic in these cases and the judge can decide if the warning is necessary in each case.
Further information
You should get legal advice for more detailed information on this.