- Adrian KeaneAdrian Keaneof the Inner Temple, Barrister, Emeritus Professor of Law, The City Law School, City, University of London, Former Dean of the Inns of Court School of Law
- and Paul McKeownPaul McKeownof Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister, Assistant Professor of Law, The City Law School, City, University of London
This chapter discusses exceptions to the general rule that there is no requirement for evidence to be corroborated. There are three categories of exception (i) where corroboration is required as a matter of law (speeding, perjury, treason, and attempts to commit these offences) and therefore a conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated evidence; (ii) where neither corroboration in a technical sense nor supportive evidence is required as a matter of law, but the tribunal of fact may need to be warned to exercise caution before acting on the evidence of certain types of witness, if unsupported; (iii) five cases in which corroboration is not required as a matter of law, and there is no obligation to warn the tribunal of fact of the danger of acting on the unsupported or uncorroborated evidence, but there is a special need for caution. The five cases are confessions by mentally handicapped persons, identification evidence, lip-reading evidence, cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and unconvincing hearsay. Identification evidence is dealt with separately in Chapter 9.