Moorov is a rule that holds that the evidence of one witness can corroborate the evidence of another in certain situations if the Crown can prove that the accused’s offending was part of a course of conduct. This is also known as mutual corroboration, or corroboration by similar facts (often used in historic cases).
The Moorov Doctrine originates from a case involving Samuael Moorov. In 1929, Mary Watt worked for Samuael Moorov. After Mary turned down his sexual advances, he suspended her from her job. When Mary reported the assault to the Police, eighteen other women from within the workplace also came forward to report similar assaults. The majority of the assaults took place without witnesses but, Samuael Moorov’s predatory behaviour was well known to those that he worked with. As a consequence of this, many of the female employees started to band together to protect each other from him.
Named after the case of Moorov  in 1930; this case turned on the sufficiency of identification evidence where a number of women, who all worked in a shop with the accused, gave evidence that he had indecently assaulted them. No act of indecency was witnessed by any other witness, yet it was held that each separate act, spoken to by one of the women, could be corroborated by the testimony of another women speaking to another such act; provided both incidents were sufficiently closely connected in time, character and circumstances. In such circumstances, the separate acts are treated as a single course of conduct,