Where there is no evidence capable of corroborating an accomplice, a trial judge is not required to explain the concept of corroboration or direct the jury that there is no corroborative evidence, provided the warning otherwise clearly and emphatically conveys the dangers of acting on the accomplice's evidence and identifies the specific risks. A sentencing judge who identifies mitigating factors must give a discernible discount for those factors; a starting point that appears to already incorporate mitigating factors without transparent reduction constitutes error of principle.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 18 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 18 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.