Corroboration XH

Corroboration
In the case of DPP v Kilbourne, Lord Hailsham expressed that there is nothing “technical” in
the idea of corroboration.1 Corroboration is just a mere term used describe an evidence that
was tendered to confirm other evidence.
In the case of DPP v. Hester, Lord Morris observed that if conviction is done based on the
testimony of more than one acceptable witness, risk of the conviction of an innocent person
could be reduced.2 The Federal Court case of Din v PP mentioned that the rule of prudence
and practice demands that evidence for rape cases should be corroborated.3 The need for
corroboration is further supported by case of PP v Emran bin Nasir. Corroboration is used to
safeguard the accused as experience has shown that female complainants have told false
stories for various reason. Thus, it is dangerous for court to convict based on the
complainant’s evidence alone.4 Besides that, in case Chao Chong & Ors v PP, children, as
commonly quoted, are unable to differentiate between “fantasy” and “reality”. 5 Hence, it is
often said that evidence given by a child is usually inaccurate as their memory is inferior.
In DPP v Kilbourne, Lord Hailsham said that evidence that is relevant and admissible to the
evidence requiring corroboration is capable of being corroborative evidence if it is believed
in court.6 The requirements of corroborative evidence is pronounced in the case of R v
Baskerville, which provides that corroboration evidence must be an independent testimony
that implicates the accused. It must also be able to connect the accused to the crime he has
committed. Corroborative evidence not only have to compliment with other evidence
tendered in order to prove the truth that the offence is committed, it should be able to confirm
the fact that the crime is indeed committed by the accused.7
R v Baskerville has been followed in the Federal Court case of PP v Thavanathan

Balasubramaniam and the test for corroboration is reformulated. In order to be considered as
corroborative evidence, the evidence must be (1) admissible in the court, (2) come from a
source independent of the evidence requiring to be corroborated and (3) such evidence must
1
[1973] AC 729
2
[1973] AC 296
3
[1964] MLJ 300
4
[1987] 1 MLJ 16
5
[1960] MLJ 238
6
[1973] AC 729
7
[1916] 2 KB 658
also be able to show that offence is committed and it was indeed committed by the
accused, by confirming itself with some material particular which was tendered in other
evidence.8
Section 134 of the Evidence Act 1950 provides that no particular number of witnesses shall
in any case be required for the proof of any fact. This means that there is no limit as to the
number of the witness that can be brought before the court.
In the case of Khaw Cheng Bok v Khaw Cheng Poon, it was held that even if there is only
one witness is called to the court, so long as their testimony is credible, it is sufficient to
establish any fact.9 Section 134 enshrines the maxim “Testes ponderantur, non numerantur”
which translates as evidence is to be weighed and not to be counted as can be seen in case of
Aziz bin Muhamad Din v PP.10 Court only concerns with the quality of the evidence and the
not the quantity.
In the case of Aziz bin Muhamad Din v PP, the general rule is that a court can act on the
testimony of a single witness although it is uncorroborated. Corroboration is only need when
it is required by law, rule of prudence or as of a matter of practice such as in the case of child
witness. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of
indifferent character.11 Generally, there is no specific rule that requires evidence to be
corroborated except in Section 133A of the Evidence Act 1950 that involves the evidence of
child of tender age.
The evidence of one unsworn witness cannot corroborate the evidence of another unsworn
witness. In PP v Mohammad Terang Bin Amit, it was stated that “The disqualification applies
to all the unsworn evidence given in a particular case; if there are two or more children giving
unsworn evidence to the same effect, still there can be no conviction unless there is some
other evidence corroborating their evidence”12
8
[1997] 3 CLJ 150
9
[1998] 3 MLJ 457
10
[1997] 1 CLJ 523; [1996] 5 MLJ 473
11
[1996] 5 MLJ 473
12
[1999] 1 MLJ 154
Proviso to Section 133A EA
Prior to the amendment, Federal Court of Malaysia requires that both sworn and unsworn
statement of the child witness must be corroborated as can be seen in the case of Loo Choon
Huat v PP.13 Now, in Pendakwa Raya v Gurdial Singh a/l Pretum Singh & Others,
Malaysia position is similar to the English position where court shall not convict on the
uncorroborated evidence of an unsworn child witness. 14
Proviso to s.133A EA provides that accused cannot be convicted based on an uncorroborated

evidence of a child witness. In the Court of Appeal case of Devi Nadia binti Alias v PP, the
court held that the unsworn statement of SP13(child witness) must be corroborated in
material particulars as provided by proviso to s.133A of EA. The corroboration need not be
direct evidence that the accused has committed the offence, mere circumstantial evidence
that shows the accused’s connection with the crime is sufficient.15
In Sidek bin Ludan v PP, proviso of s.133A EA means that uncorroborated evidence of an
unsworn child statement cannot stand alone and be used to convict the accused. Mere
administration of warning on the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence by the
court is insufficient because the proviso requires that the evidence of an unsworn child
witness shall be corroborated. The word “shall” here connotes that corroboration is a
compulsory requirement to be fulfilled.
In Court of Appeal case of Chan Wai Heng v PP, the court held that in order to implicate the
accused, unsworn statement of a child witness given on behalf of the prosecution needs to
be corroborated with some other material evidence in support. 16 Similarly, in Pendakwa
Raya v Gurdial Singh a/l Pretum Singh & Others, proviso of s.133A EA is pertinent to
criminal trial, where evidence admitted under this provision is given on behalf of the
prosecution, the accused cannot be convicted of the offence, unless that evidence admitted
under this provision is corroborated with some other material evidence in support thereof
13
[1971] 2 MLJ 167
14
[2002] MLJU 429
15
[2015] 3 CLJ 577
16
[2005] CLJ 805
implicating the accused.17 From this case, it is observed that s.113A applies to criminal cases
only and it is usually invoked when the child is a prosecution’s witness.
In the case of Dewi Nadia binti Alias v PP, SP13 who is a child witness, is not capable of
understanding the nature of the oath. However, the court after hearing of further questions
and answers to determine the level of intelligence of SP13, the court found that she is capable
to be a competent witness, though not on oath. The court has not been erred in exercising his
discretion to admit the unsworn testimony of SP13.Nonetheless, those testimony has to be
corroborated.18
In Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Bin Majid, the court cannot convict the accused based on
uncorroborated unsworn evidence because it would cause miscarriage of justice and
constitute a strong ground of appeal in a prosecution for rape it is unsafe to convict unless
there is corroboration on the allegation of rape and corroboration on the identification of the
assailant19
17
[2002] MLJU 429
18
[2015] 3 CLJ 611
19
[1977] 1 MLJ 121

Corroboration XH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corroboration XH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corroboration XH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corroboration

R v Baskerville has been followed in the Federal Court case of PP v Thavanathan

Proviso to s.133A EA provides that accused cannot be convicted based on an uncorroborated

You might also like