UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE
ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE
- A former criminal associate of the person(S) on trial
• They then become a witness for the State against their former comrades
• High risk of unreliability and fabrication
- Only applies where an accomplice is testifying for the prosecution
Why so unreliable?
➢ Criminal past – propensity, probably has been cornered by police and either is facing
charges, may hope to gain preferential treatment by giving this evidence thus their
motivation is to give evidence that the state wants to hear, they also may hold grudges
against their former accomplice.
MANDATORY NATURE OF CORROBORATION WARNINGS
• Unlike sexual offences – mandatory warning where there is accomplice evidence
However
- Prosecution can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the witness is not an
accomplice, thus avoiding the mandatory warning in respect of their evidence
Dental Board v O’Callaghan [1969] 1 IR 181
Butler
- The rule is not that uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice must be rejected or is
inadmissible
- The rule is that the jury must ‘clearly bear in mind and be warned that t is dangerous to
convict upon the evidence of an accomplice unless it is corroborated.’
- Free to convict but know it is dangerous – like sex evidence.
RATIONALE:
R v Farler 1837
Lord Arbinger C.B.
- ‘When a man is fixed, and knows that his own guilty is detected, he purchases impunity by
falsely accusing others’
R v Green 1825
Jebb J
, - Although the testimony of an accomplice alone is legal evidence on which a jury may
convict, an instance is rarely found in which a jury will be satisfied to convict upon
Why?
- Because he stands in so degraded a state, from the crimes of which he confesses himself
guilty…little credit is due to him
- the temptation to save his own life is so strong, that he can seldom be trusted
- Unless corroborated in some material circumstances.
While the temptation contemporarily is not to save ones life, it is to save one’s own skin from the
consequences of conviction or implication. Most people are selfish enough to throw their accomplice
under the bus by giving evidence and sacrificing their partner in crime by providing corroborative
evidence for an otherwise weak prosecution case. This does not mean their evidence is true, though –
they have the most justifiable and understandable reasons for completely lying.
People (AG) v Phelan [1950] 1 Frewen 98
Maguire CJ
- The accomplice knows all the details of the crime and will be able to relate them
accurately
- in order to involve another person (he/she) has only to introduce him into the story which in
its main essentials, is true.
May give a version of events that is supported by direct or corroborative evidence and just insert the
other person, manufacturing that person’s role in the story. They are in the position do this as they
know the details, as Maguire points out.
DPP v Fitzgerald [2018] IESC 58
Charleton J
Experience has shown that an accomplice may:
- put people in the frame as perpetrators of a crime who may not have been involved at all
or
- may exaggerate the role of a particular accused
this is especially so considering the
- kind of bitterness that typifies relationships within a criminal gang.
Act of revenge risk
CASE LAW – WHO IS AN ACCOMPLICE/ ELEMENTS OF THE WARNING
• cases from late 1920s/ early 30s – backdrop of social attitudes to birth of children outside
wedlock.
ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE
- A former criminal associate of the person(S) on trial
• They then become a witness for the State against their former comrades
• High risk of unreliability and fabrication
- Only applies where an accomplice is testifying for the prosecution
Why so unreliable?
➢ Criminal past – propensity, probably has been cornered by police and either is facing
charges, may hope to gain preferential treatment by giving this evidence thus their
motivation is to give evidence that the state wants to hear, they also may hold grudges
against their former accomplice.
MANDATORY NATURE OF CORROBORATION WARNINGS
• Unlike sexual offences – mandatory warning where there is accomplice evidence
However
- Prosecution can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the witness is not an
accomplice, thus avoiding the mandatory warning in respect of their evidence
Dental Board v O’Callaghan [1969] 1 IR 181
Butler
- The rule is not that uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice must be rejected or is
inadmissible
- The rule is that the jury must ‘clearly bear in mind and be warned that t is dangerous to
convict upon the evidence of an accomplice unless it is corroborated.’
- Free to convict but know it is dangerous – like sex evidence.
RATIONALE:
R v Farler 1837
Lord Arbinger C.B.
- ‘When a man is fixed, and knows that his own guilty is detected, he purchases impunity by
falsely accusing others’
R v Green 1825
Jebb J
, - Although the testimony of an accomplice alone is legal evidence on which a jury may
convict, an instance is rarely found in which a jury will be satisfied to convict upon
Why?
- Because he stands in so degraded a state, from the crimes of which he confesses himself
guilty…little credit is due to him
- the temptation to save his own life is so strong, that he can seldom be trusted
- Unless corroborated in some material circumstances.
While the temptation contemporarily is not to save ones life, it is to save one’s own skin from the
consequences of conviction or implication. Most people are selfish enough to throw their accomplice
under the bus by giving evidence and sacrificing their partner in crime by providing corroborative
evidence for an otherwise weak prosecution case. This does not mean their evidence is true, though –
they have the most justifiable and understandable reasons for completely lying.
People (AG) v Phelan [1950] 1 Frewen 98
Maguire CJ
- The accomplice knows all the details of the crime and will be able to relate them
accurately
- in order to involve another person (he/she) has only to introduce him into the story which in
its main essentials, is true.
May give a version of events that is supported by direct or corroborative evidence and just insert the
other person, manufacturing that person’s role in the story. They are in the position do this as they
know the details, as Maguire points out.
DPP v Fitzgerald [2018] IESC 58
Charleton J
Experience has shown that an accomplice may:
- put people in the frame as perpetrators of a crime who may not have been involved at all
or
- may exaggerate the role of a particular accused
this is especially so considering the
- kind of bitterness that typifies relationships within a criminal gang.
Act of revenge risk
CASE LAW – WHO IS AN ACCOMPLICE/ ELEMENTS OF THE WARNING
• cases from late 1920s/ early 30s – backdrop of social attitudes to birth of children outside
wedlock.
