A trial judge directing a jury on corroboration in the context of accomplice evidence must instruct that corroborative evidence must implicate the accused in the crime charged by tending to show both that the crime was committed and that the accused committed it; a direction that corroboration is merely evidence that 'tends to confirm or support' the accomplice's evidence is too wide. Where a Browne v Dunn direction is given, the jury must be told that there may have been good reason for counsel's failure to observe the rule. The combined effect of multiple misdirections may deprive an accused of a chance of acquittal that was fairly open, precluding application of the proviso even in a strong Crown case.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 22 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 22 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.