Any Risk of the conviction of an innocent person is lessened if conviction is based upon the

testimony of more than one acceptable witness. I n civil, as well as criminal cases, it would not
be unreasonable to expect a general rule requiring a party who seeks to prove certain facts by
the testimony of a single witness, to adduce additional independent evidence, by way of
confirmation or support, so that the tribunal of fact is double sure before it makes a particular
finding, or gives judgment in that partys favor.
1.0What is corroboration and why is it necessary?
1.1What is corroboration?
Lord Simmons state in DPP v Kilbourne
1
Corroboration is nothing other than evidence which
confirms or supports or strengthens other evidence other evidence. It is in short, evidence which
renders other evidence more probable.
Adrian Kean in his modern law of Evidence also contributed to say that, evidence capable of
amounting to corroboration may be defined as evidence which is admissible, credible and
independent and which implicates the accused person in a material particular.
Lord Reid in DPP v Kilbourne stated that corroboration means support or confirmation. In
relation to the law of evidence, it refers to any rule of law or practice which requires that certain
kinds of evidence be confirmed or supported by other, independent evidence, in order to be
sufficient to sustain a given result, such as conviction of a criminal offence.
2
As a general rule,
there is (a) no requirement that evidence be corroborated; and (b) no requirement that the
tribunal of fact be warned of the danger of acting on uncorroborated evidence.
3

2.0 Is the requirement for corroboration mandatory or can courts of law dispense with it?
The answer given in 1.2 clearly spells out the general rule when it comes to admissibility on
corroborated evidence. However the general rule has exceptions, in which corroboration may and
can be dispensable these cases are answered in the question to follow
3.0 Analyze the difference between a requirement for corroboration and a requirement for
corroboration warning (care warnings). Give succinct examples of both

1
[1973 ] A.C 729 at 750
2
Glover, Richard (2013-06-13) Murphy on Evidence (Page 663) Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition
3
Keane, Adrian;McKeown, Paul (2012-03-15).The Modern Law of Evidence (Page 222). Oxford University Press.
Kindle Edition
3.1Requirement for corroboration
The first is where corroboration (probably in a technical sense) is required as a matter of law
4

Scenarios such as these include those expressly or otherwise stated in statutes which include,
speeding, perjury treason and attempts to commit such offences In the Kenyan Jurisdiction they
are outlined as follows;
(a)Firstly evidence of children of tender years
Where a child is called as a witness in court of law, nobody shall be convicted on such evidence
unless it is corroborated section 124 of the Evidence Act cap 80 states as follows ,
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 19 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, where
the evidence of alleged victim admitted in accordance with that section on behalf of the
prosecution in proceedings against any person for an offence, the accused shall not be liable to
be convicted on such evidence unless it is corroborated by other material evidence in support
thereof implicating him. Reliance on uncorroborated evidence on children should be avoided
and so is evidence given as testimony from parents
5

(b) In speeding cases
There are cases where it is required that there should be two or more witness in the case of over
speeding, Section 43 of the Traffic Act illustrates that a person charged with a traffic offence
under the said Act shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness, to the
effect that to the opinion of the witness the person charged to be driving the vehicle was at such
great speed, this concludes that two or more witnesses should be sufficient to qualify conviction.
As was in Brightly v Pearson
6

(c) Perjury
In cases where an accused is charged with perjury there is also a need to corroborate evidence.
The accused in this case cannot be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness as to the
falsity of the statement alleged to be false. (d)Treason

4
Ibid n3
5
Maanzo V Republic criminal appeal No. 31 of 1987
6
[1983] Vol 4 ALL ER 187
Well highlighted in Section 45(2) of the Penal Code Kenya
3.2Requirement for corroboration warning (care warnings)
Care warnings, There were only two exceptions to the requirement that a warning be given:
first, where an accomplice gave evidence, on behalf of the prosecution, which was mainly
favourable to the accused and more harm would have been done to the accused by giving the
warning, second, in sexual cases in which identification was in issue, but not the commission of
the offence itself.
7
Subject to these exceptions, failure to give the warning furnished a good
ground of appeal. The warning to be given to the jury (the full warning) comprised four parts:
1. The warning itself, i.e. that it was dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the
suspect witness but that if they, the jury, were satisfied of the truth of such evidence, they
might none the less convict.
2. An explanation of the meaning of corroboration in the technical sense.
3. An indication of what evidence was (and was not) capable in law of amounting to
corroboration.
4. An explanation that it fell to the jury, as the tribunal of fact, to decide whether that
4.0 Critically analyze the Turnbull guidelines given by the Court in R v. Turnbull (1977)
and explain whether the caution required rises to the threshold of a corroboration warning
The question is premised on the requirement on identification, in this cases there is no express
requirement that the evidence of a single witness pertaining thereto be corroborated. This is
because of the noted danger of convicting the wrong person or convicting an accused on the
basis of mistaken identity.
In R v Turnbull, this case forms the basis or rather the question of mistaken identification of the
accused particularly on visual identification. The court held that the identification of the accused
in that case was unsatisfactory. As a result of this the English court laid down the following care
warning on dealing with the evidence of single witness as to identification

7
Supra n3
1. Whenever the case of the accused depends wholly or substantially on correctness of
identification of the accused alleged to be mistaken, the judge warns of the special need
for causation before conviction in reliance thereon.
2. There is need to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each
witness came to be made.
3. Failure to consider these guidelines is likely to result in a conviction being quashed
Basically the foregoing paragraphs are premised on care warnings. It is very common that
one may witness a witness on the stand purporting to have seen the accused in certain
convictable circumstances people look alike and it is with such factors that the
aforementioned guidelines were put in place. Most importantly to not convict the wrong
person, to be sure that the court is convicting the write person or the right accused person
such allegation form a testifying witness as much as may not be corroborated but the jury
should be warned as a prerequisites these warnings are stated above.
.




.