CASE REVIEW ABOUT RES GESTAE

            

DPP v. Albie Lonergan

“Words, acts or writings which are admitted as part of the Res Gestae are circumstantial evidence of an original and proximate nature. Such evidence is necessarily circumstantial. It is even more obvious in the case of Res Gestae than in the case of other circumstantial evidence, that there must be an open and visible connection between the principal fact and the evidentiary fact. Evidence which is admitted as part of the Res Gestae must be factual, not narration; must be original and not secondhand evidence. Res Gestae is in truth original evidence, thought treated under the head of hearsay”[1] So section 6[2] of the Evidence Ordinance embodied the rule of admission of evidence relating to what is commonly known as Res Gestae. It is in the nature of an exception to hearsay rule. Therefore the concept of Res Gestae permits proof of collateral statements which are so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction.

            Judgment of the DPP v. Albie Lonergan[3], Res Gestae is important to look at is how important the analytical concept. So this is the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal in a unanimous judgment be heard present a panel of three judges.[4] It is important to discuss about the critical value of this judgment.

            The applicant in this case was convicted in the Central Criminal Court of the murder of his brother. According to the evidence, the applicant and his brother (victim) had a fight in front of the victim’s home. The applicant was stabbing the victim’s chest and right thigh. As a result, the victim was killed on the same day.

            The prosecution sought successfully to lead evidence from a number of people who were present at the said address at the time of the incident and in whose presence the wounded victim made statements in the aftermath of the stabbing. Therefore, in this case the court emphasized the question was, victim’s dying declarations and other witnesses’[5] hearsay evidence can be admissible to the fact in issue under the doctrine of Res Gestae.

            According to the Louise O’ Brien’s[6] and his partner Emmet Coffey’s evidence, that the two brothers started getting abusive towards each others and were throwing digs at each others. So the court correctly identified this evidence is a part of the same transaction and therefore the court emphasized this evidence should be related to the fact in issue. Where the transaction consists of different acts, in order that the chain of such acts may constitute the same transaction on they must be connected together by proximity of time, proximity or unity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design.[7]

            After that, the court was discussed hearsay evidence given by witnesses. According to the Emmet’s evidence, after the stabbed deceased turn of Emmet and said, he had been stabbed. His exact words were “the bastard stabbed me, my own brother stabbed me”.[8] Apart from that Emmet Coffey stated in evidence that on returning to the house having chased the applicant, deceased said to her “he is after stabbing me, Albie[9] is after stabbing me”.[10] Another witness[11] stated that, the deceased replied “the cunt stabbed me”.[12]

            That the appellant’s party argued that, only those statements immediately contemporaneous with the stabbing should be admitted in evidence and that statements made some ten or fifteen minutes later, notably that of Emmet, should not be regarded as admissible because they didn’t form part of the same transaction.

            The Kearns, J said, “The prosecution sought the admission of the various statements made by the victim on the sole basis that the same formed part of the Res Gestae and as such were admissible as evidence of the truth of their contents. The prosecution didn’t seek their admission as dying declaration or on any other basis”.[13] Then the court emphasized that the dying declarations well establish in Irish law that spontaneous declaration constitute and exception to the hearsay rule.[14] Under the Sri Lankan evidence Ordinance subsection 32 (1)[15] stipulated dying declaration and it is familiar with hearsay evidence. So this hearsay evidence should be able to relate to the fact in issue under the section 6 of Evidence Ordinance.

            Apart from that according to the Fordham Law Review, “dying declarations are admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule when they are made by declarants who are dead at the time of trial and who, at the time they made the declaration, believed that their death was near and certain. It must also appear that the declarant, if living, would have been competent to testify”.[16] Glanville Williams said, “there is no need confine the exception to declarations made while dying and it ought to be extended to declarations of all deceased persons and to those people who are unable for any other reason to give evidence”.[17] In addition section 6 of the Evidence Ordinance in illustration (a) impliedly accented about dying declaration.[18] So we can argue dying declarations are admissible to the fact in issue and it is a relevant fact of same transaction.

            Finally, the court emphasized according to Ratten v. R[19], R v. Andrews[20], R v. Carnall[21], The People v. Crosbie[22], DPP v. Christie[23] and Teper v. R[24] “the court is entirely satisfied that the statements made some ten minutes after the stabbing were correctly admitted. They formed part of the same transaction, where sufficiently contemporaneous, and furthermore the court satisfied that there was no opportunity on the part of the deceased to concoct or fabricate an explanation, and indeed no motive for his having done so was ever identified”.[25] So the court dismissed the appeal.

            This judgment has many core values about Res Gestae concept. It is clearly identified in this case was cited in DPP v. Buck[26] judgment. In this judgment, also discussed about concept of Res gestae. The other core value of this judgment it helps to develop Doctrine of Stare Decisis. The learned judges in this case were used Doctrine of Stare Decisis to explain dying declaration and Res Gestae concept. The Doctrine of Stare Decisis means that courts look at past similar issues to guide their decisions in this case. Judges were cited The People v. Crosbie case. This judgment’s fact is similar to the DPP v. ALbie Lonergan case. So in this case judges were developed the Res Gestae concept in widely. In addition, this judgment helps to improve the Sri Lankan Law of Evidence and other jurisdictions, especially the area of Res gestae.

---

[1] N.W. Sibley, The Law Quarterly Review (No. LXXIV, 1903) p. 203

[2] “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”

[3] [2009] IECCA 52

[4] Kearns J, Murphy J and Clarke J

[5] Louise O’ Brien, Emmet Coffey and Jonathan Bentley

[6] Brother of the deceased’s wife

[7] M. Monir, Text Book on The Law of Evidence (8^th, Universal Law Publish co., New Delhi 2010) 39

[8] [2009] IECCA 52 – para. 1, p.2

[9]  Appellant

[10][2009] IECCA 52 – para. 1, p.2

[11] Mr. Bentley

[12] [2009] IECCA 52 – para. 3, p.2

[13] [2009] IECCA 52 – para. 12, p.3

[14] Declan McGrath, Evidence (Thompson Round Hall, Dublin 2005) 53

[15] “ When the statements  is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes in to question.

Such statements are relevant  whether the person who made them was or was not, act the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of proceedings in which the cause of his death comes in to question ”

[16]Fordham Law Review:  The Admissibility of Dying Declaration, (vol. 38 1970) 509-510

[17] Glanville Williams, The Proof of Guilt: A Study of the English Criminal Trial (3rd, Stevens and Sons, London 1963) 200

[18] “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”

[19] [1972] AC 378

[20] [1987] AC 281

[21] [1995] Crim. L. R. 944

[22] [1966] IR 490

[23] [1914] AC 545

[24] [1952] AC 480

[25] [2009] IECCA 52 – para. 25, p.6

[26] [2014] IECCA 45

From- Saranga Bandara Senevirathna

Suranga Bandara Senevirathna