Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Corroboration warning should have been given to jury in rape trial
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal allows appeal of rape and assault causing harm convictions, finding that points raised about tailoring or modifying evidence given by the complainant to accord with the forensic reports were points of substance which required the judge to give a corroboration warning.
Criminal law – appeal of rape and assault causing harm convictions – whether the judge erred in refusing to warn the jury in respect of corroboration evidence – whether the verdict of the jury was perverse – whether the judge failed to adequately address and warn the jury of what is alleged to be serious credibility concerns raised in respect of the complainant – whether the judge erred in refusing to permit the defence to cross-examine the injured party in respect of a previous complaint of sexual assault – evidential basis for a warning was very strong – points raised about tailoring or modifying evidence to accord with the forensics were points of substance required a corroboration warning – the judge erred in not providing a warning – appeal allowed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
