What is Res Gestae?

           

            Res gestae literally means things done. It refers to all facts so connected with a fact in issue, and are incidental to it. they are admissible as truth of its contents although they may be hearsay, or self serving statement and inadmissible in evidence. 

           The res gestae principle is embodied in Section 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of the Evidence Act 1950. The statement in order to constitute res gestae can be made by the parties to the transaction or even by bystanders. However, the statement should have been made at or about the same time the act was done. Contemporaniety or spontaniety must be shown before the statement is made admissible. For example, A is accused of murder of B by assaulting him. Whatever was said by A or B or bystanders at the time of assault or shortly or after it, may be relevant as it forms part of the whole transaction.

          The statements accompanying the act to be admissible should as possible be contemporaneous to act in issue which it related. Further, they should be spontaneously made so that there is no opportunity for fabrication. The whole purpose of the res gestae rules is to admit evidence of matter which are usually subject to some rule of exclusion, so as to enable the Court to look at the events in the proper perspective.

        In R v Bedingfield [1879], the accused was charged with murder. The defence was suicide. An exclamation made by the deceased woman while rushing out of the house with her throat cut was in question. The accused had entered that house a minute or two earlier. The statement was "see what Bedingfield has done to me". It was held inadmissible as the transaction in question, i.e the girl having her throat cut, was over by the time she made the statement, so it was not part of the transaction. The decision was subject to to severe criticism. The approach in Bedingfield is no longer followed in England.

       In Ratten v R [1971] 3 ALL ER 801, the accused was charged with the murder of his wife. The defence was that the shot was accidental. The deceased had telephone, "Get me the police please". The accused had denied that any telephone calls had been made from his house on the evening in question and to his rebut this, the prosecution wanted to call a telephonist from the local exchange to say that at a certain time she had taken a call from the accused's house. The telephonist said in evidence that the caller, a woman, accepted to have been Ratten's wife, had said, " Get me the police please", and had been hysterical. The defendant objected to this evidence being given, saying it was hearsay and not within any of the exceptions. The Privy Council held that it was not hearsay, and even if it had been, it would have been admissible under the res gestae principle. Lord Wilberforce set out the modern form of the res gestae rule, as follows:

" In their Lordship's opinion, the evidence was not hearsay evidence and was admissible as evidence of fact relevant to an issue.

The mere fact that evidence of a witness includes evidence as to words spoken by another person who is no called, is no objection to its admissibility. Words spoken are facts just as much as any other action by a human being. If the speaking of the words is a relevant fact, a witness may give evidence that they were spoken. A question of hearsay only arises when the words spoken are relied on "testimonial" ie, as establishing some fact narrated by the words.

Their Lordship, as already stated, do not consider that there is any hearsay element in the evidence, not in their opinion was it so presented by the trial jugde, but they think it right ti deal with the appellant's submission on the assumption that there is: ie that the words said to have been used involve as assertion of the truth of some facts stated in them and that they may have been so understood by the jury. The Crown defended the admissibility of the words as part of the 'res gestae' a contention which led to the citation of numerous authorities.

... The test should be not the uncertain one whether the making of the statement was in some sense part of the event or transaction. Thus may often be difficult to establish: such external matters as the time which elapses between the events and the speaking of the  words (or vice versa), and differences in location being relevant factors, but not taken by themselves, decisive criteria. As regard statements made after the event it must be for the judge, by preliminary ruling, to satisfy himself that the statement was so clear made in circumstances of the spontaneity or involvement in the even that the possibility of the concoction can be disregarded. Conversely, ....

The test should be not the uncertain one, whether the making of the statement should be regarded. But if the drama, leading to the climax, has commenced and assumed such intensity and pressure that the utterance can safely be regarded as a true reflection of what was unrolling or actually happened, it ought to be received. The expression 'res gestae' may conveniently sum up these criteria, but the reality of them must always be kept in mind."

         However, in the case of Teper v R [1952] 2 ALL ER 447, Teper was charged for the burning down of a shop. The prosecution wanted to called a policeman to say that he heard a women shouting "Your place is burning and you going away from the fire." It was held that the evidence of the policemen will be hearsay and this inadmissible.

        In conclusion, it must be emphasized that of all types if relevant facts which are admissible to prove the main facts in issue, the principle of res gestae plays an important role.