Hearsay part 4, res gestae part 1
Last week we looked at the case of Sparks. In that case reference was made to the doctrine of res gestae. This was one of the common-law exceptions to the hearsay rule. It is one of those common-law exceptions the effect of which is preserved under section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It constitutes rule 4 under that section and is one of the exceptions preserved as follows:
"Res gestae"
4. Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings a statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if
- (a) the statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded,
- (b) the statement accompanied an act which can be properly evaluated as evidence only if considered in conjunction with the statement, or
- (c) the statement relates to a physical sensation or a mental state (such as intention or emotion). ". Essentially the doctrine means in Latin "things done" and is aimed at statements forming an integral part of the relevant event.
In Sparks a possibly restrictive view was taken of how far that exception could go. The court cited Lord Normand in Teper v. The Queen where he said: "The rule against the admission of hearsay evidence is fundamental. It is not the best evidence and it is not delivered on oath. The truthfulness and accuracy of the person whose words are spoken to by another witness cannot be tested by cross-examination, and the light which his demeanour (i.e. his appearance when giving his evidence: the idea being that you do not judge whether a person is telling the truth just based on what they say but also on their facial expressions and mannerisms) would throw on his testimony is lost. Nevertheless, the rule admits of certain carefully safeguarded and limited exceptions, one of which is that words may be proved when they form part of the res gestae. .................This, at least, may be said, that it is essential that the words sought to be proved by hearsay should be, if not absolutely contemporaneous with the action or event, at least so clearly associated with it, in time, place and circumstances, that they are part of the thing being done, and so an item or part of real evidence and not merely a reported statement".
The House of Lords in the case of Regina v Andrews delivered the key judgement on what constitutes the res gestae. The facts were as follows. Two men entered the victim's flat and he was attacked with knives and also had property stolen. Shortly afterwards the seriously wounded victim went to the flat below his own to get help. Within minutes two police officers arrived and the victim told them that a named person and the defendant had been the attackers. Two months later the victim died as a result of his wounds. The defendant and the other named person were jointly charged with aggravated burglary and murder arising out of these events. The prosecution introduced the victim's comments (and were allowed to do so by a ruling from the judge) as evidence of the truth of the facts asserted, namely, that the victim had been attacked by the named party and the defendant. This was allowed on the basis that this was evidence coming within the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. The various appeals against this decision failed. We shall examine next week their Lordships reasons for deciding that this was properly part of the res gestae.