Statements made
spontaneously by the victim to the witness can be made admissible in court. In
the case of Ratten v R, Lord Wilberforce held that hearsay
evidence may be admitted if the statement is made in the involvement of
pressure as to exclude concoction and distortion. In that case, the call to
police was made in being forced from deceased by an overwhelming pressure, thus
it is made spontaneously. Based on that judgement, it can be sum up that, the
statement made spontaneously can be admissible because there is no time or no
room for the victim to fabricate, add in or change his statements. Plus, the
statement was made contemporaneously after the incident. Apart from this, a
case in Ireland, The People (Attorney General) v Crosbie., the
court of appeal held that the words spoken by the victim were admissible
although it was hearsay because it formed part of the criminal act for which
the accused was tried. The Court further stated that the statement made by the
victim was immediately after he had been stabbed by the defendant. In that
case, the words spoken by the victim were spoken within one minute of the
stabbing.
Question is, How accurate
can those spontaneous statement be to render it admissible?
For instance, a person
who was seriously injured after the stabbing uttered the words to another. In that
circumstance, the state of mind of that injured person might not be as clear as
when he was not injured. There are possibilities that his vision and judgment
were not that accurate compare when he was not injured. After all, they are
only human and human errors might occurred in that kind of tension situation.
Another example is when Siti’s bag was snatched during the night where the
street was dark. Subsequently, the Siti was seriously injured when her head was
knocked against the concrete floor. Adam saw the person lying down right after
she fell and she told Adam that “a guy who looks like Ali snatch my bag and
push me”. In that dark street, Siti’s judgment might be wrong although her
statement was made spontaneously. The identification of the real person who
snatch Siti’s bag might not be right. If the court admit this evidence, it
might bring injustice to Ali.
All and all, the
requirements of the statement done must be spontaneous and contemporaneous
which is connected to the fact in issue is something quite subjective and the
court had to use its discretion very carefully to scrutinize the evidence.
~Pinyin signs out~
No comments:
Post a Comment