Where an accomplice who has turned Queen's evidence gives evidence of oral admissions by the accused, evidence that merely confirms disputed factual details in the alleged admission is not capable of constituting corroboration unless it also establishes that the accomplice could not have known those details apart from the alleged admission. Pathological evidence confirming the number and nature of wounds is insufficient corroboration of an accomplice's testimony as to oral admissions where the accomplice had independent means of knowing those details through her own participation in the crime.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.