R v Makanjuola

Ratio Decidendi

Facts

The appeals concerned how trial judges should approach the evidence of certain classes of witness — complainants in sexual cases and accomplices — after section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 abolished the old rule requiring a judge to give the jury a mandatory 'corroboration warning' about the danger of convicting on such evidence alone. The question was whether, and in what terms, any warning should still be given.

Judgment Summary

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment of Lord Taylor CJ, held that the 1994 Act had swept away the former rigid requirement of a full corroboration warning for complainants in sexual offences and for accomplices, and that judges should not resurrect the old technical rules 'dressed in new clothes'. Whether to give any warning about the reliability of a particular witness, and if so in what terms, is now a matter for the judge's discretion, to be exercised on the evidence in the individual case rather than by reference to fixed categories. A mere suggestion by the defence that a witness may be unreliable will not usually justify a warning; there must be an evidential basis for questioning the witness's reliability. Where a warning is appropriate, its strength and precise terms are for the judge, and an appellate court will be slow to interfere with the exercise of that discretion. Makanjuola remains the leading authority on the modern discretionary corroboration warning.

Key Quotes

Subsequent Treatment