LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Rape – Corroboration – What Constitutes Corroborative Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In legal parlance, 'corroboration' has been held not to be a technical term of art and means no more than evidence tending to confirm, support and strengthen other evidence sought to be corroborated. See D.P.P v. Kilborne (1973) AC 729 at 758. Corroboration of the testimony of a witness must be offered by independent evidence which affects the accused person by connecting or tending to connect him with the offence charged. See R. v. Baskerville (1916) 2 KB 658 at 667 (CCA); R v. Jones (1939) 27 CR. APP. REF. 33 (CCA); R v. Hartley (1941) 1 KB 5 (CCA). The corroboration need not consist of direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence, nor need it amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness, provided that it corroborates the evidence in some respects material to the charge in issue. See R.v. Rice (1963) 1QB 857; R v. Goldstein (1916) 11 Cr. App. Rep 27 (CCA). The law is however settled that the required corroboration must not merely establish that a crime has been committed but must go to identify the accused with the crime in some material particular. See R. v. Mumuna and another (1938) 4 WACA 39 at 41; R. v. Baskerville (1917) 12 Cr. App Rep. 81; R. v. Preprah and others 4 WACA 34 at 36; Ekelagu v. Queen (1960) 5 F.S.C. 217, (1960) SCNLR 488. On a charge of rape, for example, the corroborative evidence must confirm in some material particulars that: (1) Sexual intercourse has taken place, and (2) that it took place without the consent of the woman or girl, and also (3) that the accused person was the man who committed the crime. See James v. R (1971) 55 CR. App. Rep 299 (PC).
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Iko v. State (2001) NLC-1772001(SC) at p. 21; Paras A–E.
"In legal parlance, 'corroboration' has been held not to be a technical term of art and means no more than evidence tending to confirm, support and strengthen other evidence sought to be corroborated. See D.P.P v. Kilborne (1973) AC 729 at 758. Corroboration of the testimony of a witness must be offered by independent evidence which affects the accused person by connecting or tending to connect him with the offence charged. See R. v. Baskerville (1916) 2 KB 658 at 667 (CCA); R v. Jones (1939) 27 CR. APP. REF. 33 (CCA); R v. Hartley (1941) 1 KB 5 (CCA). The corroboration need not consist of direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence, nor need it amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness, provided that it corroborates the evidence in some respects material to the charge in issue. See R.v. Rice (1963) 1QB 857; R v. Goldstein (1916) 11 Cr. App. Rep 27 (CCA). The law is however settled that the required corroboration must not merely establish that a crime has been committed but must go to identify the accused with the crime in some material particular. See R. v. Mumuna and another (1938) 4 WACA 39 at 41; R. v. Baskerville (1917) 12 Cr. App Rep. 81; R. v. Preprah and others 4 WACA 34 at 36; Ekelagu v. Queen (1960) 5 F.S.C. 217, (1960) SCNLR 488. On a charge of rape, for example, the corroborative evidence must confirm in some material particulars that: (1) Sexual intercourse has taken place, and (2) that it took place without the consent of the woman or girl, and also (3) that the accused person was the man who committed the crime. See James v. R (1971) 55 CR. App. Rep 299 (PC)."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Corroboration is evidence that confirms, supports, and strengthens other evidence. It must be independent and connect the accused to the offence. It need not be direct or confirm the entire account—corroborating material particulars suffices. For rape, corroboration must confirm: (1) sexual intercourse occurred; (2) without consent; (3) the accused committed it. The evidence must identify the accused with the crime, not merely show a crime occurred. The principle from R. v. Baskerville governs. Corroboration is not a technical term—ordinary meaning applies. The judge must identify proper corroborative evidence. The appellate court will review whether the evidence meets the standard.
