I. They are and were admissible in themselves and were neither discredited or shaken in cross-examination. II. Having been so admissible in themselves, they certainly originated from sources independent of the evidence of PW 1 that required corroboration and I so hold. III. They have shown by confirmation of material particulars not only that the offence charged was committed but that it was committed by the accused through his own confessions which were never discredited or shaken under cross-examination. I find support of the above contention in the case of BASKERVILLE (1916) 2 KB 658 AT 667 wherein LORD READING CJ expressed the requirements in the following terms:“……evidence in corroboration must be independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. In other words, it must be evidence which implicates him, that is which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that a crime has been committed, but also that the prisoner has committed it. The test applicable to determine the nature and extent of the corroboration is thus the same whether the case falls within the rule of practice at common law or within that class of offences for which corroboration is required by statute.” IV. The accused person’s admission of the offence to the above witnesses is sufficient corroboration and I so hold. 20