I. COMMON LAW
Common Law’s case, Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions held that accomplice include:
i. Persons who participate in the crime whether as principle or secondary parties, ii. Receiver of stolen goods in the case of a trial for theft offences or; iii. Persons involved in other offences held to be admissible in relation to the offence charged.
As we all know, common law is in effect legal precedent that is made by judges sitting in court. Unlike statutory provisions, which are laws that are codified as Acts of Parliament, the common law is constantly changing. It can be said that the common law is the body of law that develops and derives through judicial decisions, rather than from legislative enactments. Thus, there is no written law that governs or explains about the position of accomplice evidence in Common Law.
However, we still can see court approach over accomplice evidence based on decided cases. From these decided cases, we can see the fluid way in which judges interpret the law using their knowledge of legal precedent and common sense and by applying the facts of the case they are hearing to…show more content… This rule, although a rule of practice, now had the force of a rule of law and where the judge failed to warn the jury in accordance with it, the conviction would be quashed, even if, in fact, there was ample corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice, unless the appellate court could the proviso to s 4(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. As there was no evidence that L knew that any of his companions had a knife, he was not an accomplice in a crime which consisted in its felonious use and therefore, it was not necessary for the trial judge to give a warning to the