truth at page 53 of the High Court judgment and page 16 of the Court of Appeal Judgment.” 99. The Respondent State also submits that it was clear from the caution statement of the Second Applicant that he knew about the crime that was about to be committed but took no steps to prevent the same and even after the crime was committed, he took no steps to report the same thereby confirming his common intention with the other perpetrators. The Respondent State also points out that the caution statement of the Third Applicant explained in detail his participation in the crime including his admission as to how he shot the deceased. The Respondent State submits, therefore, that “Exhibits P7, P9 and P10 reflected nothing but the truth hence there was no need for corroboration” and that the Applicants were properly convicted on the basis of the evidence on record. *** 100. The Court observes, from the record, that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal demonstrated an awareness of the necessity of confirming the reliability of the caution statements before relying on them. This is manifest from, for example, page 57 of the High Court’s judgment where the court warned itself of the danger of relying on statements by co-accused to justify a conviction and also pages 16 to 21 of the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It is clear that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal confirmed, on the evidence before them, that the Applicants had a common intention when they committed the robbery. 101. In this Application, the Court has not been able to establish any manifest irregularity necessitating its intervention to set aside the findings of either the High Court or Court of Appeal. As a matter of fact, the Applicants themselves, save for complaining about the application of the requirement of corroboration – which was dealt with by the domestic courts – have not demonstrated and proved any manifest anomalies that the domestic courts committed in relying on the caution statements. 27