SINGAPORE'S APPROACH TO THE CORROBORATION WARNING: THE "UNUSUALLY CONVINCING" CONCEPT

Abstract

When the prosecution’s case is based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a complainant of a sexual offence, the testimony has to be “unusually convincing” for guilt to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Recently, the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v GCK [2020] 1 SLR 486 clarified the scope and function of the concept to apply to all uncorroborated eyewitness testimonies that the Prosecution solely relies on to prove its case for conviction. These changes are reflective of the Singapore courts’ shift away from categorising witnesses to taking a more principled approach to evaluate witness testimonies. This paper seeks to chart how the courts have taken a more principled approach to corroboration warnings through tracking the historical development of the “unusually convincing” concept since its adoption into local jurisprudence. Based on these developments, this paper seeks to evaluate the value of adopting a principled approach and identifying the future approach of the courts.