According to the hearsay rule, the court would normally refuse to admit hearsay evidence. The common doctrine of res gestae had provides an exception to the hearsay rule to admit such evidence. Res gestae is a latin phrase having the literal meaning of things done. It is defined as secondhand statements which is considered trustworthy for the purpose of admission as evidence in a lawsuit when repeated by the witness because they were made naturally, spontaneously and concurrently with an event, thus carry a high degree of credibility and less chances for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
The common law doctrine of res gestae was first circumscribed definitively in the case of R v Bedingfield. The principal test to determine the admissibility
…show more content…
In Malaysia, the common law principle of res gestae is incorporated in section 6 of the Evidence Act. Section 6 of the Evidence Act stipulates that facts which though not in issue are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Illustration (a) of the same section provides that where A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction is a relevant fact. In the case of Tan Geok Kwang v Public Prosecutor, the appellant was charged with being in possession of a revolver. At the trial evidence was led to show that a hand-grenade had been thrown from a blukar into which the appellant had run and in which no other person was found by the Police, to show that the revolver found had been fired a few days previously at Sungei Bakap and to show the contents of documents found in the possession of the
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
I wanted to look at the investigative and criminal procedures following the arrest of an alleged criminal and the powerful effects via testimonies and evidence (or lack thereof) it can have on a case.There is an importance of the courts in regards to crime that can’t be over looked. The primary function of the criminal justice system is to uphold the established laws, which define what we understand as deviant in this society.
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
as to whether or not a case is taken up. This is what decides the
This concept now embedded in the Federal Rules of Evidence can trace its philosophical underpinnings in prerevolutionary England. Before the 17th century, English courts had very few limitations on what evidence could be admitted into court.3 This court system, which was created in the wake of Norman invasion in 1066, did not ...
The General Court. "General Laws." : CHAPTER 265, Section 37. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. .
Subsequently, one of the main components of the procedural limitation is innocent until proven guilty, which brings about the right to a Grand Jury- a panel that determines whether or not there is a need to go to trial. As a result, a guilty verdict in criminal cases is determined with evidence that is sufficient and that must be proved “‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” (pg.131), so there is an immense need to increase the chances for the respect of “reasonable doubt” (pg.
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
2. Res Gestae is an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. Res gestae is based on the belief that because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously and without deliberation during the course of an event, thus the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility. Res gestae is a Latin phrase means "the thing done". 2 Res Gestae, Topic 3, law of evidence. Prepare by ikram Abdul Sattar
Attempted murder, involved the voluntary act of Jack pointing a gun and firing it (act) at Bert that resulted in (causation) death of Pratt (social harm), which proves the elements of actus reus. ...
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
1.The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case…
Accessed 16/03/2012. http://www.law201.co.uk/95.pdfaccessed on 16/03/2012. http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199219742/01student/mindmaps/loveland_mindmaps_royal_prerogative.pdfaccessed on 17/03/2012. http://www.justice.gov.uk/royal-prerogative.pdf accessed on 17/03/2012. http://www.justice.gov.uk/royal-prerogative.pdf accessed on 18/03/2012.
The sala of Judge Cresencio Tan was kind enough to allow us to observe cases where evidences were presented in the form of witnesses and documents. The first case was simple enough as it was for the initial reception of the prosecution’s evidence. In this proceeding, the prosecutor merely requested for the markings of the evidences she presented in court and the counsel for the accused was asked if he admits it or not. I was waiting for some evidence that would not be admitted by the counsel for the accused in order to see what would happen next, however, all evidences were admitted. With that, that particular session ended. The second case called was for the continuation of reception of prosecution’s evidence. In this case, a witness was presented and the counsel for the accused addressed the witness. I observed that his line of questioning was set on establishing doubt in relation to his personal knowledge of the crime and the drugs in question. The counsel for the accused was able to establish that since the witness himself admitted that he was not really there during the arrest. This case illustrated to me the importance of the element of personal knowledge of a a crime in the determination of a person’s