R v Whitehead
1929 · 1 KB 99
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Whitehead was of an offence of carnal knowledge of a girl under sixteen. The girl had made a complaint. The question was whether that complaint her evidence.
- Issue
- Is a recent complaint corroboration?
- Held
- No. Lord Hewart CJ held that the complaint showed consistency. It was not independent evidence implicating the accused. Without corroboration the conviction could not stand, on the statute as it then was.
- Principle
- A complaint admitted to show consistency is the complainant's own previous statement. It cannot corroborate her.
- Why it matters
- Christie is the House of Lords case in the same line.
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.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.