Can a knife be corroborative of the complainant’s story that she did not consent?

As to the knife the learned trial Judge instructed the jury that it could be corroborative of the complainant’s story that she did not consent. The complainant’s evidence was that the appellant acquired the knife in the house of a mutual relative, that it was a household type of knife, that he took it with him to the place of the alleged offence and there used it to threaten and frighten the complainant as he carried out his sexual attack. When the police apprehended him, he was asleep on a blanket and a knife answering the description of that allegedly used by him was on the grass close by. While this in itself does not prove non-consent, the question is as to whether or not it is capable of corroborating her story as to non-consent. Three aspects of the facts should be noted. The first is that this was a household knife, not the kind of knife that a person would be expected to carry around. The second is that the knife was found along with a number of other articles, such as a radio and a pair of boots contiguous to the appellant and obviously in his possession or under his control. The third is that there was no suggestion of the presence of food or of any other thing for which a knife of this type would prove useful. It seems to me that the evidence of the police as to finding the knife in these unusual circumstances could provide some corroboration for her evidence as to non-consent within the meaning of the rule set out in Thomas v. The Queen, supra.