Skip to main content

When does evidence need corroboration? (Criminal Procedure cases)

XP, a teacher in charge of water polo, was accused of molesting the young boys in his team. D and E both claimed that XP had molested them on separate occasions, but nobody else could corroborate what they had said. Could XP be convicted on D's evidence or E's evidence alone, without corroboration? Could D and E corroborate one another?

The court said "(2) There was no formal legal requirement for corroboration under s 136 of the Evidence Act where a case turned on the complainant’s word against that of the accused. ... a complainant’s testimony had to be unusually convincing in order to prove the Prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt without independent corroboration" Does the complainant in sexual offence cases need corroboration?

The problem in such cases is that the complainant is often the only witness, and there are no other witnesses. The courts have decided that corroboration is not required every time - Kwang Peng Hong v PP [2000] 4 SLR 96

However, must be unusually convincing - Teo Keng Pong v PP [1996] 3 SLR 329 and Lee Kwang Peng v PP [1997] 3 SLR 278

A child witness may need corroboration. "It is a sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, whether sworn or unsworn, but this is a rule of prudence and not of law" - Chao Chong v PP [1960] MLJ 238

So it is in fact possible to convict based on uncorroborated evidence of a child, if it is convincing enough. In the following case, even though there were more than one child, the court did not rely on them to corroborate one another, because the accused had claimed they were colluding. Instead the court decided that each child was convincing enough. Otherwise if the child appears to be immature or unreliable, the court will not convict based on his uncorroborated evidence


Popular posts from this blog

Chapelton v Barry UDC (Exclusion Clauses)

Mr Chapelton went to a beach run by Barry UDC. See saw deckchairs. A notice next to them said,
"Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Hire of chairs 2d. per session of 3 hours ... tickets should be obtained from attendants."  He got two chairs from an attendant, paid the money and got two tickets. He put them in his pocket. On the ticket was written,
"Available for three hours. Time expires where indicated by cut-off and should be retained and shown on request. The council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair."  When he sat on the chair it gave way and he was injured. Would the exemption clause work? The Court of Appeal held that Barry UDC made an offer when the chairs were on display, Mr Chapelton accepted when he picked up the chairs from the defendant, and the ticket was merely a receipt of the contract, so the exclusion clause could not be incorporated as a term, because it was too late.

A Picture Speaks a Thousand Words to Show Lee Kuan Yew's Impact on Singapore Economy

He led the team that turned mudflats into a metropolis, but could one graphic describe the impact that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had on Singapore? This one from the Economist does a pretty good job of representing it.

The underlying philosophy of the Visual Law School site is that complex issues and concepts (such as the law and legal principles) can be made more understandable by showing them in a visual or graphical format. This infographic will not replace the reams of text and hours of eulogies that will mark the life and impact the Mr Lee had on our country. But it is a relatively fair and balanced window into the story that helps to put that impact into a global and historical perspective. Read the full article at The Economist
Rest in Peace, Mr Lee, we will always be grateful for what you did.

Lim Geok Hian v Lim Guan Chin (Misrepresentation)

Lim Geok Hian (brother) convinced his sister Lim Guan Chin to sign a contract that : if their father bequeathed the family home to either of them, they would share the home equally instead. Actually, Lim Geok Hian already knew that his father had written a will bequeathing the entire house to Lim Guan Chin. But he expressedly or impliedly represented to her that it was likely that he would inherit the house. When the father died, Lim Geok Hian tried to enforce the contract. The Court of Appeal affirmed that since his sister was induced by the fraudulent misrepresentation to sign the contract, it could be set aside