Abstract
In Singapore, the common law doctrine of r es gestae (‘RG’) risks becoming extinct given the statutory inclusions of hearsay evidence. Further, the test for RG is unsettled. This article thus argues that RG is still relevant but must be applied principally. It is relevant because first, it is unwise to uproot a doctrine existing since 1808. Second, comparative analysis of cases from United Kingdom, India, New Zealand and Australia evinces the residual need for RG. Third, a modified approach to applying it can in fact exclude inadmissible evidence. This article further proposes a three-strand test. First, as a preliminary requirement, objectively, there was no concoction involved. Second, the evidence must relate to a fact-forming part of the same transaction but was not contemplated in s. 32(1) of the Evidence Act. Third, the evidence must have sufficient probative value to outweigh its prejudicial effect.
Highlights
The first trace of res gestae (‘RG’) being applied in the law of evidence was in 1808, in America.1 RG is Latin, denoting ‘things done’ in connection with words and/or actions that occur in close time and substance to each other such that they form part of the same transaction (Morgan, 1937: 93)
Comparative analysis of cases from United Kingdom, India, New Zealand and Australia evinces the residual need for RG
The amendments to s. 32(1) of the Evidence Act in 2012, intended to add flexibility to established statutory hearsay exceptions,2 meant that the relevance of RG became less clear
Summary
The first trace of res gestae (‘RG’) being applied in the law of evidence was in 1808, in America.1 RG is Latin, denoting ‘things done’ in connection with words and/or actions that occur in close time and substance to each other such that they form part of the same transaction (Morgan, 1937: 93).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have