R v Makanjuola
After the abolition of the mandatory corroboration warning for complainants in sexual cases, it is for the judge's discretion whether to warn the jury to be cautious, depending on the evidence.
Facts
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 abolished the requirement for judges to warn the jury of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice or of a complainant in a sexual case. In two appeals, the defendants argued that the judges should nevertheless have given a warning about the evidence of the complainants in sexual cases.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. Lord Taylor CJ said that it is a matter for the judge's discretion what, if any, warning he considers appropriate in respect of the evidence of a witness, and that this will depend on the circumstances of the case, the issues raised and the content and quality of the witness's evidence. There must be an evidential basis for suggesting that the evidence of the witness may be unreliable, which goes beyond a mere suggestion by cross examining counsel. Attempts to reimpose the straitjacket of the old corroboration rules are strongly to be deprecated, and the Court of Appeal will be slow to interfere with the exercise of the judge's discretion.
Related cases on witnesses, identification and expert evidence
- Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398
- Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6, [2016] 1 WLR 597
- R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4
- R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1
- R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
- R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
- R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, [2008] 1 AC 1128
- R v Forbes [2001] 1 AC 473
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
