Osei Yaw v Domfeh that where the evidence of a party is corroborated by his opponent whose evidence is uncorroborated, the court ought to accept the corroborated evidence as against the uncorroborated evidence.
Evidence which supports or strengthens admitted evidence, must be independent affecting issue or confirm some material fact per Lord Reading CJ in R v Baskerville. Connotes three concepts
1-must have connection with previous evidence
2-connection should amount to affirmation or denial
3-affirmation and connection should be attributable to issue.
S 7 evidence from which reasonable inference can be drawn which confirms in material a particular evidence to be corroborated and connects the relevant person with crime, claim or defence, evidence corroborating may be independent evidence which also requires corroboration, corroboration of admitted evidence not necessary, uncorroborated evidence is admissible unless substantial miscarriage of justice arises.
Mandatory rule: corroboration is relevant only where required by an enactment, s7(5) allows at least one CL rule to be applied without expressly stating it, applying particularly when considering evidence of sexual offences or statements concerning identification of accused persons.
In court room practice may be required in evidence of cases on breach of promise to marry, paternity proceedings and cases pertaining to a dead person, per Kusi & Kusi v Bonsu per Wood CJ no ROL that claims against dead person ought to be corroborated, judge may accept any uncorroborated evidence if satisfied about its truth, only rider caution is to examine it critically, with utmost care ensuring that no loopholes or absurdities occasion it, per Hanson v Rep Archer JA in law no need for corroboration in sexual offences but in practice always looked for as dangerous to act on evidence of complainant alone against his assailant.
Eric Asante v Rep corroboration not mandatory doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be sued by prosecution if available to prove guilt and turn around to argue that it is statutory not binding as failure may result in a reasonable doubt being created in court’s mind.
Per Commodore alias Kayaa v Rep where there’s independent corroborative evidence connecting accused to crime, judge must direct mind to it if used to corroborate accomplice’s evidence, however in absence of corroboration conviction based solely on accomplice’s evidence, it must appear clearly after warning that nevertheless accomplice’s evidence is adequate and acceptable by trier of fact, though admissible evidence of accomplice no independent corroboration doesn’t warrant conviction, per Obeng v Rep since A wasn’t a participant to the crime, the issue of accomplice vel non could not have arisen. The determination of whether or not a person is an accomplice was a question of fact for jury to decide, judge in directing jury to regard 1st prosecution witness as accomplice has usurped jury’s function, as there was lack of evidence that she was and her evidence was corroborated by other witnesses of the suspected criminals and her non-involvement per Apetorgbor v Rep. Atadi v Ladzekpo it would be wrong for a trial court to rely on demeanour of a host of witnesses to determine the issue at stake, whilst there was the need for caution in accepting the corroborative evidence of a relation, esp. when offered against a stranger, it was not justifiable to reject same without laying a foundation esp. when on the evidence such a witness was the only person known to have personal knowledge of the events at issue.