jury) that, although they (or the judge) may convict on the evidence of the accomplice, it is dangerous to do so unless such evidence is corroborated. This rule, although a rule of practice, has the force of law. Where the judge fails to warn in accordance with this rule, then, even though there is ample corroboration of the accomplice’s evidence, the conviction will be quashed unless the appellate court is satisfied that no substantial miscarriage of justice has been caused by a breach of the rules. The warning must be direct and precise. For this reason the court quashed the conviction in R v PRICE (1968). The warning to the jury in that case was: “When they (the jury) have to take the evidence of an accomplice, they ought to view it with particular care and they ought to look to see whether there is other evidence separate from that of the accomplice which implicates the accused in a material particular…..having had that warning they may accept the evidence of the accomplice and even without corroboration if they think it right” Self-assessment example: “If there is corroboration but no warning, the prosecution fails”. Justify this assertion and its impact on miscarriage of justice. CONCLUSION Evidence does not constitute corroboration unless it clearly links the accused with the crime charged and also confirms the evidence of the accomplice as to the material circumstances of the crime. The prosecution must fail where the law requires corroboration and the court finds none or where the corroboration offered is irrelevant to the issue. The kind of corroboration required is not confirmation by independent evidence of everything the accomplice relates but some independent testimony which affects the accused. The uncorroborated evidence of an