LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Rape – Corroboration – Nature of Evidence Required to Corroborate Complaint in Sexual Offence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The learned trial Judge then proceeded in his judgment to ask a pertinent question. He said: 'The question to examine now is whether there is anything outside the evidence of the PW 1 to corroborate her evidence.' By saying this, it appears to me very clearly that he has heeded to the warning and that he did not intend to convict on the evidence of PW1 alone. He would look for corroborative evidence. What then did he find as corroborative evidence? ... First, the accused himself admitted he took the PW1 to his house and asked her to wait there while he went to park the vehicle. Secondly, the PW1 said she ran away from the house of the accused person into the house of the PWIV at No.5 Effiong Ukpong street. This has been confirmed by the accused ... With due respect to the Court of Appeal, I think they were wrong to affirm that the trial Judge's finding of corroborative as listed by him properly constituted ample corroboration of the offence of rape on PW1. ... What have these 2 items got to do with the confirmation that PW1 was actually raped? ... It is trite law that evidence in corroboration must be independent testimony, direct or circumstantial, which confirms in some material particular not only that an offence has been committed but that the accused has committed it. See R. v. Baskerville (supra). In this case the evidence which the learned trial Judge found to be corroboration and which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal is not such evidence. I find no such other evidence in this case.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The learned trial Judge then proceeded in his judgment to ask a pertinent question. He said: 'The question to examine now is whether there is anything outside the evidence of the PW 1 to corroborate her evidence.' By saying this, it appears to me very clearly that he has heeded to the warning and that he did not intend to convict on the evidence of PW1 alone. He would look for corroborative evidence. What then did he find as corroborative evidence? ... First, the accused himself admitted he took the PW1 to his house and asked her to wait there while he went to park the vehicle. Secondly, the PW1 said she ran away from the house of the accused person into the house of the PWIV at No.5 Effiong Ukpong street. This has been confirmed by the accused ... With due respect to the Court of Appeal, I think they were wrong to affirm that the trial Judge's finding of corroborative as listed by him properly constituted ample corroboration of the offence of rape on PW1. ... What have these 2 items got to do with the confirmation that PW1 was actually raped? ... It is trite law that evidence in corroboration must be independent testimony, direct or circumstantial, which confirms in some material particular not only that an offence has been committed but that the accused has committed it. See R. v. Baskerville (supra). In this case the evidence which the learned trial Judge found to be corroboration and which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal is not such evidence. I find no such other evidence in this case."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Corroboration in rape cases must be independent testimony that confirms both that an offence was committed and that the accused committed it. Evidence that the accused took the victim to his house or that she ran away does not corroborate the act of rape itself. Such evidence may show opportunity or presence but not the sexual act. The corroborating evidence must relate to the material particular of penetration. The court must carefully distinguish between evidence that supports the prosecution’s case generally and evidence that specifically corroborates the alleged offence. The principle from R. v. Baskerville applies. Corroboration must be independent of the complainant’s testimony. The trial judge must identify proper corroborative evidence, not merely circumstantial details. The appellate court will interfere if the corroboration is insufficient.
