The appellant was convicted of stock theft. The trial magistrate warned himself that the principal prosecution witness had a possible interest of his own to serve, and that his brother who supported his evidence might equally have an interest or be a witness with a possible 25 bias. Having warned himself of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of these witnesses the magistrate proceeded to hold that they were telling the truth although there was in fact no corroboration or support.
Held:
(i) A witness with a possible interest of his own to serve should be treated as if he were an accomplice to the extent that his evidence requires corroboration or something more than a belief in the truth thereof based simply on his demeanour and the plausibility of his evidence. That "something more" must satisfy the court that the danger that the accused is being falsely implicated has been excluded and that it is safe to rely on the evidence of the suspect witness.
