7 legal representative; Krishna’s evidence whether the other persons in the parade were of similar build, height, age and appearance to the appellant was unsatisfactory; there is no evidence that the persons on the parade were similarly dressed and Krishna was not told that the suspect may not be present. There was no evidence that Krishna had made a prior description of the robbers, which bore any resemblance to the appellant. The State, without explanation, failed to lead any other evidence regarding the circumstances under which the identification parade was held. The parade’s reliability was not tested and therefore had little evidential weight.3 For as Van den Heever JA stated:4 ‘[W]here such identification rests upon the testimony of a single witness and the accused was identified at a parade which was admittedly conducted in a manner which did not guarantee the standard of fairness observed in the recognised procedure, but was calculated to prejudice the accused, such evidence, standing alone, can have little weight.’ [14] The learned magistrate and the court below were alive to the difficulty of relying only on Krishna’s identification of the appellant. But they found that Ramseroop’s testimony that the appellant had given him the metal box, which was proved to have been the very one taken during the robbery, constituted sufficient corroboration to link the appellant conclusively to the robbery. [15] With respect to the theft of the Corolla (count 3), counsel for the appellant urged us to find that Ramseroop’s evidence was insufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt. He advanced two reasons for his submission: first that Ramseroop, as an accomplice, had an interest to 3 4 S v Daba 1996 (1) SACR 243 (E) at 249d-e. R v Masemang 1950 (2) SA 488 (A) at 493-494.