 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 69 IV. Corroboration 2.26. Need for corroboration in certain cases.- Coming to corroboration, we may state that English criminal law still requires that certain testimony should be corroborated. Statutory examples of such requirement as to perjury1, and the requirement of corroboration of the evidence of the plaintiff in suits based on breach of a promise to marry.2 The last mentioned illustration has now no practical value, because the cause of action for breach of promise to marry does not now survive in England. Judicial requirements as to corroboration exist-to mention two important cases-in regard to the testimony of accomplices3 and certain sexual offences4. 1. Section 13, Perjury Act, 1911. 2. Section 2, Evidence (Further Amendment) Act, 1869. 3. Davis v. D.P.P., 1954 AC 378. 4. R. v. Zielinski, (1950) 2 All ER 524.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back