Laryea Goe V. The Queen (1953)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Criminal Law and Procedure—Evidence—Accomplice—Circumstantial corroboration.
The appellant was accused of stealing tyres and the evidence against him was that he had sold some to two purchasers, one of whom the trial Judge regarded as an accomplice.
The argument was inter alia that the evidence offered as corroboration was evidence of approaches by the appellant to other persons who, he thought, would assist him in stopping a criminal prosecution and that that evidence was not corroboration of the actual sales (which is the point on which the case is reported).
Corroboration may be circumstantial: the evidence was offered to prove that the appellant had dealings with or had made admissions in respect of the tyres against himself, which connected him with the theft of the tyres and was therefore corroboration of the accomplice.