Makanjuola Warning
Share
Until 1994, the trial judge would have been required to warn the jury about the dangers of convicting based on the uncorroborated evidence of a sexual complainant. However, this requirement was abolished by Section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as noted in the case of R v Makanjuola (1995).
Under the current law, the trial judge is not obligated to say anything specifically about uncorroborated evidence from a sexual complainant. However, even though not required, the judge still retains the discretion to comment on the evidence if he deems it unsafe. There may be exceptional situations where the trial judge finds it necessary to provide guidance to the jury regarding the potential pitfalls of certain types of evidence.
For example, in cases involving cell confessions, where one prison inmate confesses to another, it is usually necessary for the trial judge to warn the jury about the inherent dangers of such evidence. This is because the inmate testifying to the confession may have a strong motive to please the authorities, and the usual safeguards for recording a confession made to the police may be absent.
The requirement to provide a warning about the dangers of certain types of evidence, including cell confessions, was reiterated in the case of R v Nudds (2008) where the Court of Appeal emphasised that the warning does not need to follow a specific formula but should adequately convey the potential impact on the reliability and credibility of the evidence.
Therefore, in the specific case being considered, it is advisable for the trial judge to make some comment or provide a warning to the jury about the potential dangers of uncorroborated evidence. However, the judge has flexibility in deciding how to deliver this warning and is not bound to a particular form or language.
Under the current law, the trial judge is not obligated to say anything specifically about uncorroborated evidence from a sexual complainant. However, even though not required, the judge still retains the discretion to comment on the evidence if he deems it unsafe. There may be exceptional situations where the trial judge finds it necessary to provide guidance to the jury regarding the potential pitfalls of certain types of evidence.
For example, in cases involving cell confessions, where one prison inmate confesses to another, it is usually necessary for the trial judge to warn the jury about the inherent dangers of such evidence. This is because the inmate testifying to the confession may have a strong motive to please the authorities, and the usual safeguards for recording a confession made to the police may be absent.
The requirement to provide a warning about the dangers of certain types of evidence, including cell confessions, was reiterated in the case of R v Nudds (2008) where the Court of Appeal emphasised that the warning does not need to follow a specific formula but should adequately convey the potential impact on the reliability and credibility of the evidence.
Therefore, in the specific case being considered, it is advisable for the trial judge to make some comment or provide a warning to the jury about the potential dangers of uncorroborated evidence. However, the judge has flexibility in deciding how to deliver this warning and is not bound to a particular form or language.
