Law_of_Evidence_in_Kenya

Recommendations

Info

7.1 Why it should be abolished.i) Corroboration especially with such stringent rules can sometimes act as an obstruction ofjustice especially in sexual offences where it is hard to obtain since they are done away frompublic.ii) In criminal cases the accused is already protected with the standard of proof which is beyondreasonable doubt. For such reasons, the jury does not require any more evidence. It is upon themto 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 beingeither defence or applicants.iii) Corroboration should be relaxed on more persuasive scientific evidences such as DNA whichare mostly accurate given the manner they are reached at.It is also likely to save the courts embarrassments from the many successful appeals on groundsof corroboration, it will also make the public to have more faith on the judicial system and alsoerase the existing confusion as to corroboration.iv) Corroboration is evidence based on quantity, since evidence A is in doubt we need B toconfirm or support. Instead the judge should just test the reliability of the existing evidence andconvict or acquit on such test.v) The manner in which some crimes are committed make it hard to find corroboration. Exampleis rape cases the penetration without consent, this are planned crimes, happen in exclusion ofpeople, 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 vUnited States 18 where Black J said "Our system of justice rests on the general assumption thatthe truth is not to be determined merely by the number of witnesses on each side of acontroversy. In gauging the truth of conflicting evidence, a jury has no simple formulation ofweights and measures upon which to rely. The touchstone is always credibility; the ultimatemeasure of testimonial worth is quality and not quantity. Triers of fact in our fact-finding18 (1945) 323 US 606 at 608.
tribunals are, with rare exceptions, free in the exercise of their honest judgment, to prefer thetestimony of a single witness to that of many".7.2 Why we must retain corroborationAccessing credibility or reliability of evidence will be so difficult without corroboration. It mightin itself result in an injustice. Fabrications can pass the tests successfully.The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubts in criminal cases can barely be achieved withoutcorroboration which is to clear all the doubts surrounding a given evidence by confirming thoseparticular facts.Sometimes to determine the quality of some evidence, you need quantity to confirm or supportthe position whether quality is enough to proceed.Corroboration is not something very hard to get since it can be gotten from circumstances of thecase or even from a person evidence is given against.The removal of corroboration would just slow the justice process. There will be requirement ofseries of investigations to come up with evidences. The process will be too long given that thereis a possibility of interference with the evidences. The country will also have to invest on thecriminal justice system.The victims will likely be traumatized when they realize that the evidence they have given is notenough to convict the accused.It will most likely result into more acquittals than convictions. No matter which test the courttakes it will always fail to reach the standard of proof required.8.0 APPLICATION OF CORROBORATION EVIDENCELord Reading “The test of applicability to determine the nature and extent of the corroborationis the same whether the case fall within the rule of practice at common law or within the classof offences for which corroboration is required by statute. Admissibility, this mean that theevidence itself must confirm to the general rule of admissibility and so be capable of beingreceived for the purpose of proving guilt as charged. 19 ” The general rule is that corroboration isactually not necessary or a requirement Javed v Republic Kubo J, held there is no law in Kenya19 Baskerville v Rex, Peter Murphy a practical approach to evidence 4th ed (Blackstone press publication)
Page 1 and 2: CORROBORATION1.0 OVERVIEWCorroborat
Page 3 and 4: The definition above confines corro
Page 5 and 6: accused had been charged for indece
Page 7: IDENTIFICATION CASES; this is where
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?