ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on two particular topics within the law of evidence that are often labelled 'suspect' or 'hazardous': uncorroborated evidence and identification evidence. The lack of corroboration may mean that the case is too weak to prosecute or, if prosecuted, it may be difficult to persuade the jury of the defendant's guilt. In the modern criminal trial, forensic evidence increasingly provides corroboration, although DNA evidence is now seen as direct, and often conclusive, evidence. Corroboration warnings were also mandatory in relation to complainants testifying in sexual cases. Eyewitness identification evidence implicating the accused is often highly cogent, and consequently a high degree of weight may be placed upon it by the factfinder. When the quality of the identifying evidence is poor and unsupported, the trial judge should be under a duty to invite submissions and, if appropriate, to withdraw the case from the jury.
