This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes

Corroboration And Warnings Notes

Updated Corroboration And Warnings Notes

Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes

Criminal Procedure and Evidence

Approximately 325 pages

A collection of the best Criminal Procedure and Evidence notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of Criminal Procedure and Evidence notes available in the UK this year. This collect...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Judicial discretion to warn of the dangers of relying on the evidence of suspect witnesses: Makanjuola directions etc

Lord Taylor CJ in Makanjuola laid down rule that trial judge may have to delivery jury warning cautioning them from relying to readily upon the witnesses’ testimony, the content of which depends on extent of risk.

  • Law used to have strict corroboration rules, sometimes going as far as to require witness evidence to be corroborated and in other cases just requiring direction.

  • Widespread criticism of corroboration requirements. Led to unfairness, discrimination and confusion.

  • Old rules eventually abolished.

Now English law has no principle that you cannot convict on a single piece of uncorroborated evidence.

(Exceptions in Perjury Act 1911, s13 (no conviction of perjury offences solely on uncorroborated evidence) and Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984).

Mankanjuola Directions

Court of Appeal in Mankanjuola said judge retains discretion of whether or not to offer directions:

  • Wherever matter arises at trial, should be discussed in absence of jury first.

  • Otherwise, v broad principles. Depends on the content and manner of the witness’s evidence, circumstances of the case and the issues raised.

  • No set formula

Walker

  • Girl complained to police that mother’s boyfriend had been having intercourse with her. Later retracted complaint and then made it again. Judge did not refer to this in summing up.

  • Ebsworth J – situation “Cried” out for application of Mankanjuola principles.

    • However Lord Taylor CJ said CA would only interfere with these decisions where the judge’s decision was wholly unreasonable.

Cell Confessions

Admissions made by one prisoner to another during joint detention:

  • Pringle v R: No fixed rules requiring judges to deliver particular form of warning, but Lord Hope noted the potential for miscarriages of justice here because there can be improper motives (e.g. immunity?).

    • If such indications are present, judge should draw jury’s attention to them and their significance.

  • Reiterated by Lord Hope again in Benedetto v R.

Inferences from lies told by the defendant: Lucas directions

The Lucas direction is required to guide jury where a defendant is shown to have told lies.

  • Stops them from jumping to conclusions

  • Complex rules in this area – better to analyse each individual case.

  • Burge and Pegg: Kennedy LJ warned against unnecessary recourse by judges to Lucas directions because they add complexity etc.

Burge and Pegg – CA outlined 4 categories of case where Lucas direction commonly called for:

  1. D relies upon false alibi

  2. Where judge uses Mankanjuola direction in relation to particular suspect witness’s testimony and the judge says Ds lies might serve to confirm the evidence of the suspect witness

  3. Prosecution seeking to show that something D said out of court was lie, and relies on the lie as evidence of guilt in relation to the charges laid against D.

  4. Judge reasonably envisages real danger that jury will be tempted to draw inference unless warned not to do so.

Not all inconsistencies need direction.

  • Minor inconsistencies in past/previous accounts do not require it

  • Simply difference in argument between pros/defence definitely doesn’t call for it.

  • There should be risk that the jury will treat evidence of guilt

Beck:

  • Charge of conspiracy to defraud....

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes.