Law_of_Evidence_in_Kenya

Recommendations

Info

person; but that is a different matter, for there confirmation comes, if at all, from what is said,and not from the falsity of what is said. It is, of course, correct to say that these circumstances –the failure to give evidence or to give false evidence – may bear against an accused and assist inhis conviction if there is other material sufficient to sustain a verdict against him. But if the othermaterial is insufficient either in quality or extent they cannot be used as a make-weight 15 ” LordMacdermott. R v Dowley the appellant was convicted of rape of a woman who he was onprocess of divorcing, he had said earlier that she had not seen the woman but later agreed that hehad seen her and had sex plays with her but was afraid to not to irate the woman he was currentlyin relationship with. The judge had convicted him on basis that lie amounted to corroboration.The appeal was allowed and conviction quashed.5.0 TYPES OF CORROBORATIONMUTUAL CORROBORATION; this happens where several parties or two parties givingevidence that require corroboration, corroborate the evidence inter se. mutual corroboration isalways permissible in law except in case of accomplices being „participes criminis‟ in theoffence charged 16 Javed v Republic (2002) K.L.R Cr App No 966 the appellant was chargedwith some narcotics, he appealed that the evidence he was convicted upon was uncorroborated,the judge held that the two policemen had corroborated each other‟s evidence.CUMULATIVE CORROBORATION; this are several portion of evidence that are brought byvery many independent sources. The judge takes them all and then they are accreted if they areconnecting to form corroboration or the jury attach weight to each. Accretion may make severalevidences that were not corroborating to make a corroboration. The instances may be connectedto come up with a good evidence at the end. The Earl of Reading C.J “In this case, I come to theconclusion that there is in law, evidence upon which the justice could decide that therespondent‟s testimony was corroborated in some material particular by other evidence. Eachfact found by the justice as tending to corroborate the respondent‟s evidence may by itself besufficient as corroboration but the cumulative effect of the evidence regarded not separately butcollectively may be and I think in this case is sufficient……..”15 TumeHole Bereng v R16 Critical Analysis of Corroboration under the Nigerian Law of Evidence by Kareem Rasheedat Temitope
IDENTIFICATION CASES; this is where witness identification at first instances is consideredas corroboration6.0 CONSTITUTION AND CORROBORATION EVIDENCECorroboration is usually required to protect the accused from suspicious evidence and avoid therisk of conviction on fabricated evidence. Article 50 of constitution provides that the accusedmust be given a fair trial. The law will always be try and protect the accused “it is better to let 99guilty people free than have one innocent man incarcerated.” This just tell us that in caseevidence is suspicious, it works at the accused advantage. Requiring corroboration does not alsoseem fair to the victims who do not have an independent confirmatory evidence. In such a case itwill result to an injustice to the person who cannot get supporting evidence despite the credibilityof his own evidence. Under article 50 (9) the parliament shall enact legislation providing forprotection of rights and welfare of victims of offences, this can be done by allowing or acceptinguncorroborated evidence instead of quashing convictions for lack of corroboration. Every personhas equal rights before the law and therefore it should be applied mutually.Silence has been said to amount to corroboration but the constitution states that the accused hasthe right to remain silent and not testify during the proceedings. 17 In such a case corroborationwill be unconstitutional and invalid.7.0 RELEVANCE OF CORROBORATIONThe question many people keep asking themselves is whether the modern society still needs tocorroborate evidence. Some people have felt that the law of corroboration is obsolete and shouldbe done away with especially after emergence of modern scientific evidence. They don‟tunderstand why it still existing or why such evidences are also corroborated. The other groupfeel that corroboration still has relevance and deleting it would result to miscarriage of justice.They although recommend that it should be reviewed so that certainty is reached.17 Article 50 (2) (i) constitution of Kenya 2010
Page 1 and 2: CORROBORATION1.0 OVERVIEWCorroborat
Page 3 and 4: The definition above confines corro
Page 5: accused had been charged for indece
Page 9 and 10: tribunals are, with rare exceptions
Page 11 and 12: 8.3 Where corroboration is not requ
Page 13 and 14: given before the court was not enou
Page 15 and 16: Sexual Offences Act No 3 of 2006G.B
Page 17 and 18: Character Evidence in Kenyan LawThe
Page 19 and 20: evidence of a fact or directly rele
Page 21 and 22: person can be questioned on his pre
Page 23 and 24: offence with which the defendant is
Page 25 and 26: OPINION EVIDENCEAn opinion is a vie
Page 27 and 28: some professional or technical matt
Page 29 and 30: Experts are brought by the parties
Page 31 and 32: Opinion evidence is not binding to
Page 33 and 34: Section 50 (1) of the Evidence Act
Page 36: REFERENCESAllen, C. (2008). Practic

Law_of_Evidence_in_Kenya

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?