QUESTION

Selected a decided case in English, India, or Srilanka jurisdiction on the topic res gestae

and write a case review. In the review should critically evaluate Res gestae concept,

discuss in the case how this concept is applied to facts in the case , and the contribution

of the case to develop the particular are in law of Evidence in particular jurisdiction.

CASE REVIEW

The rules against hearsay is one of the oldest, most complex and most confusing of

the exclusionary rules of evidence1 . Lord Reid has said that “ is difficult to make any

general statement about the law of hearsay which is entirely accurate2.’’ one of the

reasons is that its definition , and the ambit of exception to it , are both unclear.

Section 114 criminal justice act 2003 3 in England deal with applications of the rule

governing the admissibility of res gesate . Taylor defines “ res gestae ’’ as including

everything that may be considered “ an incident of the event under consideration 4’’.

This phrase was familiar in classical Latin literature. Its meaning was quite unthecnical

translating, simply as “a fact ’’ “a transaction ’’ “an event ’’. The plural form , res gestae

indicated the details or particular of which a transaction might be composed5 . Applied

to the law of Evidence it implies that when the circumstances of particular events are

in issue in a trial , evidence relating to any part of that event is relevant and

generally admissible . A fact may be relevant to a fact in issue , because it throws

light on it by reason of proximity in time , place , or circumstances 6 .

However, English law has taken more liberal approach in recent years to evidence of

this kind . In LEITH McDONALD RATTEN V THE QUEEN7 ( Privy council) on appeal

from the supreme court of the state of Victoria., is one of the best examples , related

the scope of the res gestae principle. So, I expected to review this case related the
scope of the res gestae principle. Lord Reid , Lord Hodson , Lord Wilberforce Lord

Diplock , and Lord Cross of chelse were judgers of this case. In Ratten v. Queen the

fact in this case were that accused has been charged with the murder of his wife.

The evidence in question was testimony from a telephonist who received a phone call

from the Rattern’s residence , opened the speak key and after saying “ NUMBER

PLEASE ’’ hard the high pitched reply “ GET ME THE POLICE PLEASE’’ then the

words “ 59 , MITCHELL STREET ” . but before she the connection to the police

station , the call hung up. This was crucially important evidence in the case. Because the

evidence established that the shooting , from which the wife died almost immediately,

must have taken place in their home between 1.12 p.m. and 1.20 pm . Since the

telephonist was convinced the speaker was a woman , apparently in a state of fear.

Rattern claimed that he accidently shot his wife and that it was he who telephoned,

asking for ambulance .

The appellant’s explanation , which he consistently maintained from his very first

contact with the police, was that an old shotgun had accidently discharged while he

was cleaning it. This explanation , however , was undermined by his inability to explain

how the shotgun came to be loaded , and why, as an experienced hunter, he had not

checked to see if the gun was loaded. On these facts , the judicial committee of

privy council held that there was a prima facie case against the appellant. So, privy

council held that the telephonist’s evidence was admissible and appeal dismissed.

The scope of the res gestae principal was applied by the judicial committee of

the privy council in Rattern v Queen’s case. Lord Wilberforce said that in the

context of the law of evidence, the term may be used in at least three different

ways.8
 1. When a situation of fact is being considered , the question may arise,

when does the situation begin and when does it end. It may be arbitrary

and artificial to confine the evidence to the firing of the gun or the

insertion of the knife without knowing in a broader sense, what was

happening.

2. The evidence may be concerned with spoken words are then themselves

the res gestae part of the res gestae.

3. A hearsay statement is made either by victim of an assault or by a

stander indicating directly or indirectly the identity of the attacker. The

admissibility of the statement is then said to depend on whether it was

made as part of the res gesate.

He further said that , “ Evidence would have been admissible as part of the res gestae

because not only was there a close association in place and time between the

statement and the shooting, but also the way in which the statement came to be

made, in a call for the police and the tone of voice used showed intrinsically that the

statement was being forced from the wife over whelming pressure of contemporary

events,’’9 so, the privy council held that the telephonist’s evidence was not hearsay

and was properly admitted because of its relevance to the issues. The privy council

did however consider the fact that the evidence, in a way ,did contain a hearsay

element , namely that the words as used by the wife did involve assertion of the truth

fact that she was being attacked by her husband.

In , Rattern V Queen case can evaluate res gestae concept very well. Because , Until

recently , the courts took a strict approach as to when the event was continuing and

when it had terminated. In the leading R V Bedingfield the accused was charged with
murder, his defense was that the deceased emerged wounded from the room in which

the accused had been, she stated “ OH.. DEAR AUNT, SEE WHAT HARRY HAS

DONE TO ME ’’ she immediately died. This statement was excluded by Cockman CJ

on the basis that it was after the fact, and therefore , didn’t constitute part of the res

geste. This approach was followed by the supreme court of Canada in Gilbert V. The

King, and also the Privy Council has addressed itself as well as to the question of res

gestae in Teper V The king .Finally , Rattern V Queen , the judicial committee altered

the approach to res gestae, or as it now termed “ Spontaneous exclamations ’’ , from

the determination of whether the statement constituted part of the trans action or

event to the question of the risk of concoction or fabrication of evidence by the

defense.

Discuss the legal body of this case , this is a appeal case and dismissed the appeal.

But, not overruled any other judgments. Because, this case imitationed a more liberal

approach. So, it’s very important reportable, case in England.

Indicate the contribution of this case to develop the related hearsay against rule.

After the judgment of this case was applied in lot of other judgments not only

England but also other jurisdictions. In R V Andrew10 the house of lords , following

Rattern case upheld the admission of information given by a man grievous wounded

to two police officer . In Canada, Rattern has been referred to with approval in two

criminal cases.R V Mulligan 11 Mr. Justice O’Driscoll of the Ontario High court

admitted the statement, “ Billy Stabbed me’’, on the basis that it constituted a dying

declaration as well as on the basis of Rattern . In R V Garlow, and Garlow12 also

Rattern has been referred. In Leong Hong Kong Khie and Tan Gong Wai V Public

Prosecutor 13 and R V Haynes (2011) case where the principles in Ratten’s case were

adopted .
Some writers mentioned their books about Rattern V Queen Case related res gestae concept.

E.R.S.R. Coomaraswamy in his text book on “The Law of Evidence ’’ , asserted that “ The

scope of the res gestae principle was considered by the judicial committee of the

privy council in Rattern v Queen ’’ 14 Cross in his text book on ‘ Evidence ’ indicate

the Rattern case related the res gestai concept and also , Peter Murphy in his text book

on “ A Practical Approach to Evidence ’’ asserted that theory and development of the

rule against hearsay related Rattern case. Not only that , Melbourne University law

journal , UNSW Law journal , Bond Law Review , Osgoode Hall Law journal mentioned

the Rattern V Queen case related res gestai concept .

In my final opinion , I like to discuss merits and demerits about this judgment

from my view. Discuss the merits about this judgment , Many years have past since the

Evershed Committee on Supreme Court Practice and Procedure16 declared that desirable

reforms in the hearsay rule could be achieved 'by a liberal interpretation of the rule of

evidence known as res gestae'. In Ratten v. R. the Judicial Committee accepted that

invitation, seizing the opportunity to undertake a complete restatement of the doctrine of res

gestae. This readiness to deal with res gestates, on the assumption that the evidence was

hearsay, is indicative of the reform-oriented approach of the whole judgment. Indicate the

demerits about this judgment related res gestai concept. In this judgment Lord Wilberfoce

said that , “ the first is that there may be uncertainty as to the word exact used

because of their transmission through the evidence of another person than the speaker.

The second is because of the risk of concoction of false evidence by persons who

have been victims of assault or accident.” So , I thinked judges always must their

attention facts in issue very carefully. If so, can get a good decision related res gestai

concept cases.
 However , this judgment is very important and also new liberal approach judgment

Writer’s comment about this judgment;

“This judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is note- worthy for the
significant attempts at reform contained within it. The clear rationalization and
extension of the res gestae doctrine is to be commended, as is the lead given towards the
more rational assessment of the probative value of evidence. But both of these initiatives
are undermined by the Judicial Committee's refusal to investigate the unexplored
'periphery of hearsay'. This case has been regarded as significant because of its clear
restatement of the res gestae doctrine: most of the commentators seem to have
overlooked the fundamental criticism that 'far greater uncertainty is likely to be
produced by doubts concerning what a rule is than by doubts concerning the number of
exceptions to it.” 16
END NOTES
1. Morgan,” Hearsay Dangerous and the application of the hearsay concept ’’, (1948) 62
Harv Lr 177.
2. Myers v Director of public prosecution ( 1965) AC 1001
3. Criminal justice Act 2003 Section 114
4. Taylor , Law of Evidence , 11th Ed , p 402
5. UNSW Law Journal- volume 12
6. Cross , on Evidence
7. ( 1971 ) AC 378, ( 1971) 3 AER 801
8. ( 1971 ) AC 378, ( 1971) 3 AER 801
9. ( 1971 ) AC 378, ( 1971) 3 AER 801
10. ( 1987) 1 ALLER
11. ( 1973) 23 CRNS 1
12. (1971) , 31 CCC ( 21)
13. ( 1986) 2 MLJ 206,208
14. E.R.S.R. Coomaraswamy, The Law of Evidence. 204 Pg
15 The article by Professor Nokes, 'Res gestae as Hearsay', (1954) 70 Law Quarterly
Review 370.
16 Young cj , Melbourne University law review , Vol 9, SEP 7,73
BIBILIOGRAPHY
CASE LAW
1. LEITH McDONALD RATTEN V THE QUEEN, ( 1971 ) AC 378, ( 1971) 3 AER
801
2. R V Bedingfield
3. Gilbert V. The King,
4. Teper V The king
5. R V Andrew, ( 1987) 1 ALLER

6 R V Mulligan, (1973) 23 CRNS

7 R V Garlow , (1971) , 31 CCC ( 21

17 8 Leong Hong Kong Khie and Tan Gong Wai V Public Prosecutor, ( 1986) 2
MLJ 206,208

LAW JOURNALS
*Melbourne University law review, Vol 9, SEP 7, 73. N. J. YOUNG

* UNSW Law journal- volume 12 STEPHEN J. ODGERS , LL.B , LL.M ( Columbia) ,

senior lecture , faculty of law, university of Sydney.

* Bond Law Review

*Osgood Hall Law journal. Article six

* Law Quarterly Review 370. Professor Nokes, 'Res gestae as Hearsay', (1954) 70

BOOKS
*E.R.S.R. Coomaraswamy, The Law of Evidence. 204 Pg

*Cross, on Evidence, sixth evidence,Butterworth & co. (publishers) ltd, 1985

*Morgan,” Hearsay Dangerous and the application of the hearsay concept ’’, (1948) 62 Harv
Lr 177

*Peter Murphy, “A Practical Approach to Evidence’, Blackstone press ltd, Aldine place,
London, w128AA (1980)

*Taylor, Law of Evidence, 11th Ed, p 402