11.10.2022 Views

Law_of_Evidence_in_Kenya

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

7.1 Why it should be abolished.

i) Corroboration especially with such stringent rules can sometimes act as an obstruction of

justice especially in sexual offences where it is hard to obtain since they are done away from

public.

ii) In criminal cases the accused is already protected with the standard of proof which is beyond

reasonable doubt. For such reasons, the jury does not require any more evidence. It is upon them

to analyze the evidence given if it reaches the threshold.

ii) The law of throwing out cases on grounds of technicality has been found to be bad law.

Throwing a case on grounds of lack of corroboration is just but same to technicality.

Corroboration results into miscarriage of justice on the persons who are required to bring it being

either defence or applicants.

iii) Corroboration should be relaxed on more persuasive scientific evidences such as DNA which

are mostly accurate given the manner they are reached at.

It is also likely to save the courts embarrassments from the many successful appeals on grounds

of corroboration, it will also make the public to have more faith on the judicial system and also

erase the existing confusion as to corroboration.

iv) Corroboration is evidence based on quantity, since evidence A is in doubt we need B to

confirm or support. Instead the judge should just test the reliability of the existing evidence and

convict or acquit on such test.

v) The manner in which some crimes are committed make it hard to find corroboration. Example

is rape cases the penetration without consent, this are planned crimes, happen in exclusion of

people, which we might not find any other evidence to confirm.

vi) Use corroboration make us view evidence in terms of quantity and not quality Weiller v

United States 18 where Black J said "Our system of justice rests on the general assumption that

the truth is not to be determined merely by the number of witnesses on each side of a

controversy. In gauging the truth of conflicting evidence, a jury has no simple formulation of

weights and measures upon which to rely. The touchstone is always credibility; the ultimate

measure of testimonial worth is quality and not quantity. Triers of fact in our fact-finding

18 (1945) 323 US 606 at 608.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!