Submission of no case to answer where the issue is a witness's reliability (R v Galbraith)

R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 sets the test for a submission of no case to answer. If there is no evidence that the defendant committed the crime, the judge stops the case. Where there is some evidence but it is tenuous, the judge must stop the case if the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict on it. However, where the strength or weakness of the prosecution evidence depends on the view taken of a witness's reliability, or other matters generally within the province of the jury, and on one possible view of the facts there is evidence on which a jury could properly convict, the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury. The partner's evidence, if believed, proves the offence; the inconsistency and motive go to reliability, which is for the jury.

Why A is wrong: Damage to credibility goes to reliability, which Galbraith leaves to the jury where one possible view supports conviction.

Why B is wrong: Galbraith rejected the approach of stopping a case merely because the judge thinks a conviction would be unsafe.

Why C is wrong: A submission of no case is decided at the close of the prosecution case, on the prosecution evidence.

Why D is wrong: There is no general requirement of corroboration before a case can be left to the jury.