R v Prater
1960 · 2 QB 464
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Prater was of conspiracy to defraud and of uttering forged documents. A co-accused, Welham, gave evidence in his own defence. It was said that Welham was an , and that the judge should have warned the jury not to convict on his evidence without .
- Issue
- Does the accomplice warning apply to a co-accused who gives evidence for himself?
- Held
- The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal. A witness who has a purpose of his own to serve, including a co-accused, may attract a warning that it is dangerous to act on his evidence alone. It is not the warning owed in respect of an accomplice called by the Crown, and the omission is not fatal where there has been no miscarriage.
- Principle
- The Baskerville warning is for an accomplice tendered by the prosecution. A witness is in a different position. A warning may still be wise. It is not the same rule.
- Why it matters
- The same limit is in R v Bagley and R v Loveridge for this limit. Davies v DPP remains the definition of an accomplice for the prosecution warning.
Words and Latin in this note
- Corroboration
- Independent evidence that confirms a witness in a material particular and implicates the accused. One witness is enough for most charges. Some offences fail without corroboration, and some witnesses call only for a warning. Open the note.
- Accomplice
- A witness who was a party to the offence, a receiver giving evidence against the thieves, or a party to another offence the prosecution uses to prove the charge. If the prosecution calls him, the judge warns the jury of the danger of convicting on his evidence alone. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.