A corroboration warning under Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 50 is not required merely because a child complainant in a sexual offence case is the sole witness to one count, where the jury is properly directed that the count depends on that witness's evidence alone, the issue of possible concoction is firmly before the jury, and inconsistencies in the evidence are discussed at length. The term 'corroboration' in jury directions need not be defined technically; it is sufficient to equate it with support or confirmation by other evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.