The case of R v Makanjuola confirms that a judge cannot give a warning to the jury for the lack of corrobartive evidence. The judge has discretion whether to issue such a warning and the nature of of the warning. A judge is likely to use this warning if the witness is show to have lied in the trial

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The statement is incorrect. The case of R v Makanjuola actually established that a judge must give a warning to the jury if there is no corroboration for the defendant's confession, and that the judge must make it clear that the warning is mandatory rather than a matter of discretion. The case did not address the issue of a witness lying in the trial.

The Case of R V Makanjuola Confirms That a Judge