LAW OF EVIDENCE II

(LLS4243)
CORROBORATION
(ASSIGNMENT)

NAME: NURUL FATIN AMIRAH BT ABD WAHAB

PREPARED FOR: MR. MOHD KAMARUZAMAN BIN ABDUL WAHAB

Introduction

In Dictionary of Law, Sixth Edition by L. B Curzon given that, corroboration

means independent, admissible and credible evidence tending to confirm that the
principal evidence is true1. According to the case of DPP v Hester 2, the best synonym
for the word corroboration is support. Therefore, we can conclude that corroboration
is evidence which is admissible according to law to support evidence in any cases.
According to section 134 of Evidence Act 3, it does not require the evidence of
witnesses to be corroborated to prove the fact. It was explain in the case Dato
Mokhtar bin Hashim v PP 4 where the judge stated that to support the defence of
alibi, court will look on the weighing the credibility of the respective witnesses, not by
the mere numerical preponderance on one side or the other.

What amounts to corroboration?

The corroborative evidence must be evidence of some fact which renders the
truth of the story given by the witness which is more credible. 5 The definition of
corroborative evidence was laid down in case of R v Baskerville 6 where it must be
independent evidence which connects that accused with the same crime. It must be
1 Curzon, L.B (2007). Dictionary of Law (6th ed., p. 100). Petaling Jaya, Selangor:
International Law Book Services.
2 [1972] 3 All ER 1056
3 Section 134 of Evidence Act 1950
4 [1983] 2 MLJ 232
5 Rafiah Salim: Evidence in Malaysia and Singapore: Cases, Materials and
Commentary 3rd Edition. Published by LexisNexis. Page 658
6 [1916] 2 KB 658

evidence which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that the
crime has been committed but also the accused has committed. The definition in this
case was adopted by the case of Dowse v Attorney General, Federations of Malaya 7
which stated that corroborative evidence must be truly probative on the relevant
issue which it must positively implicate the accused committed the offence. In Attan
bin Abdul Gani v PP8, the principle in this case is that corroborative must be
independent evidence which connects the accused with the same crime. In
Thavanathan a/l Balasubramaniam v PP 9, the corroborating evidence must show not
only that the offence was committed, but that it was committed by the accused. In
Muniandy & Anor v PP10, stated that circumstantial evidence as corroborative is
valueless unless it is independent evidence which in a material particular implicates
the accused.
There are 3 situations that amount to corroboration evidence which are firstly,
distressed condition of the victim where it was stated in the case of Liew Kim Yong v
PP11. in this case, the distressed condition of a victim may support to the victims
story although it must be regarded with caution. Second situation is the conduct of
the accused. The principle in the case Dato Seri Anuar bin Ibrahim v PP 12 stated that
the conduct of the accused before and after committing the alleged offence may be
7 [1961] MLJ 249
8 [1970] 2 MLJ 143
9 [1997] 2 MLJ 401
10 [1973] 1 MLJ 179
11 [1989] 3 MLJ 323
12 [2004] 1 MLJ 177

used to corroborate the evidence of the complainant. In another case, Dowse v

Attorney General, Federation of Malaya 13, the appellants conduct in arranging and
paying for a medical examination to find out whether the girl with whom he allegedly
committed adultery was pregnant, was held to amount to corroboration of that
allegation. Besides, false statements made by an accused person also have been
held to be corroborative evidence of his guilt. Third situation which amount to
corroboration is medical evidence. According to the case of PP v Rusydi Okp
Harun14, the principal in this case was that the detected semen which matches the
DNA profiling of the accused found at the crime scene is among medical evidence
which can corroborate the evidence of a complainant in a sexual case.

Corroboration is required as a matter of law.

Corroboration is required as a matter of law if there is to be a conviction. The
court cannot convict the accused unless there is corroboration of the witnesses
evidence. If the accused is convict without corroboration, the conviction is illegal and
will be quashed.15 For example as provided under section 133A where evidence
admitted by virtue of this section is given on behalf of the prosecution, the accused
shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence unless that evidence is corroborated
by some other material in evidence in support thereof implicating him. 16 Therefore, it
13 [1961] MLJ 249
14 [2006] 5 CLJ 345
15 Raja Singam: CLP Evidence. Published by Brickfields Asia College Publication,
Page 162
16 Section 133A Evidence Act 1950

means that in order to convict the accused, the evidence must be corroborated with
other material of evidence such as circumstances evidence or others. In the case of
Sidek bin Ludan v PP17 the court stated that section 133A means a conviction cannot
stand on the uncorroborated evidence of an unsworn child witness. Unlike the
position prior to the enactment of section 133A, it is now insufficient for a trial court to
merely administer a warning on the dangers of so convicting. Based on this case,
unsworn child witness statement is uncorroborated evidence because the court said
that the child tend to give false statement because of confusing between reality and
fantasy. The principal lay down in the case of Arumugam a/l Mothiyah v PP 18 is that
the requirement under section 133A is mandatory in nature and must be followed
before an accused can be convicted. If requirement under this section is not
followed, then the conviction is illegal.

Corroboration is not required as a matter of law.

On the other hand, there is also corroboration which is not required as a
matter of law such as children giving sworn evidence. For example in the case Chao
Chong v PP19, the judges stated that the evidence of a child must be regarded with
suspicion because it is a matter of common knowledge that children at times find it
difficult to distinguish between reality and fantasy. They find it is difficult after a lapse
of time to distinguish between the results of the observation and the results of

17 [1995] 3 MLJ 178

18 [1995] 1 CLJ 58
19 [1960] MLJ 238

imagination. In this case, the judges refer to the case of Mohamed Sugal Esa v The
King20 where the judges in that case said that it is a sound rule of practice not to act
on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, whether sworn or unsworn, but this is a
rule of prudence and of law.
Another situation where corroboration is not required as matter of law is in
sexual complainants. In the case of Din v PP 21, the desirability for the corroboration
of the evidence of the prosecution in a rape case springs not from the nature of the
witness but from the nature of the offence. According to section 133 of Evidence Act
1950, it was stated that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an
accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In section 114, illustration (b) provides
that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credits unless he is
corroborated in material particulars. In the case of Tan See Boon v PP 22, the judges
stated that various considerations and reasons have been stated as the basis of the
relating to accomplice evidence. In the case PP v Nomezam Apandy bin Abu
Hassan23, the judged said that an accomplice is a person who has participated in the
commission of an offence, he is a particeps criminis. An accessory after the fact is
not a particeps criminis and is not in law and accomplice.

20 AIR 1946 PC 3
21 [1946] MLJ 300
22 [1966] 1 MLJ 219
23 [2008] 1 MLJ 681

Corroboration warning required as a matter of practices and prudence.

In situation where a person who is accomplice gives evidence on behalf of the
prosecution, it is the duty of the Judge to warn the jury that although they may
convict upon his evidence, it is dangerous to do so, unless it is corroborated and
observed that this rule applies only to witnesses for the prosecutions. 24 Therefore,
the warning must be given, then the judge may convict in the uncorroborated
evidence of the witness if he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. 25 For example in
the case of Daud bin Awang Ngah v PP 26, it was stated that where the accused
person gives evidence which tends to incriminate a co-accused, the jury should be
warned that it is dangerous to convict upon such evidence unless it is corroborated.
Whether or not such a warning should be given to the jury is not matter of law. It is a
matter to be decided in the light of the circumstances of each individual case. It
some cases, such warning might not necessary, however in others as matter of
ordinary prudence such warning would be imperative.

Former statements of witnesses.

According to section 15727, a witness may rely on this section by using a former
statement made by him to corroborate his evidence. However, there are 2 conditions
24 Davies v Director of Public Prosecutor [1954] AC 378
25 Raja Singam: CLP Evidence. Published by Brickfields Asia College Publication,
Page 162
26 [1958] MLJ 168
27 Evidence Act 1950

that must be satisfied before section 157 can apply. The 2 conditions are (i) the
witness should have given testimony with regard to certain facts and (ii) he should
have made a statement previously on the same fact at or about the time when the
fact took place or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact. 28 For
example in the case of Paneerselvan29, the words at or about the time in section
157 mean that the statement must be made at once or at least shortly after when a
reasonable opportunity for making it presents itself. The object of the section is to
admit statements made at a time when the mind of the witness is so connected with
the events as to make it probable that his description of them would be accurate.

Conclusion
Therefore, corroboration evidence is more admissible evidence that given by the
witness rather than relevancy or other type of evidence. Based on section 133A of
Evidence Act 1950, all requirements under this section must be fulfilled and therefore
corroboration is a must in order to convict a person and to make the conviction is
legal. However, there is also a case where corroboration is not required such as
sexual complainant. This is because the judge held that woman in involved in sexual
offences tends to fabricate some stories or telling lies. However, from my opinion, I
28 Rafiah Salim: Evidence in Malaysia and Singapore: Cases, Materials and
Commentary 3rd Edition. Published by LexisNexis. Page 708
29 PP v Paneerselvan [1991] 1 MLJ 106

feel that corroboration for sexual offences are needed in a form of documentary or
oral evidence is suffice even there is no clear provision for this matter. It is
undeniable that society always hate rapist but do not forget that an accused is
always presumed innocent until proven he is guilty. With corroboration, only justice
could be served.