Res Gestae: four conditions;
1-Contemporaneity or spontaneity of statement, Woledzi v Akufo-Addo Cecilia-Koranteng Addow J contemporaneous event in law means took place same time as another or immediately after such that the two events can be considered as taking place at same time, Gen rule evidence in previous trial can’t be used as evidence of fact at subsequent trial because such might fall within hearsay rule or offend against principle of relevance except where it fall among the exceptions, per R v Bedingfield strictly applied, when act begun and ended, ‘Aunty see what Bedingfield has done to me’ per Cockburn CJ not admissible because it was made after it was all over, inadmissible as dying declaration because nothing was led in evidence to show that victim was under a sense of impending death or know that she was dying.
Per Ratten v R murder of wife between 1:12pm and 1:20pm, at 1:15pm witness receipt of telephone call from Ratten’s house made by sobbing woman in a hysterical voice ‘get me the police’ is admissible as res gestae because its close in time and place between statement and shooting and the tone of voice showed statement was being forced from wife, as regards a statement made after the event it must be for the judge.
2-Immediately after the occurrence, closely associated in time and place and circumstances that they are part of the thing being done, that there is no room for declarant to have reflected on what to do or say or not say or do per Tepper v R, evidence of friends of murdered wife that she told them she was helping husband prepare suicide notes as part of related project admissible to prove that when she wrote the note she wasn’t of suicide frame of mind per R v Gilfoyle.
R v Andres the proper test is can the possibility of concoction or distortion be disregarded, or startling or dramatic as to dominate thought of victim so his utterance was an instinctive reaction to the event thus giving no opportunity for reasoned reflection?
3-Made at time of Stress of event, GPHA v Nova Complex statement made one day after event admissible because maker was still under the stress caused by event.
4-Statements accompanying and explaining relevant facts: relating to mental states, Marital Affection, Dislike of a child, relating to physical sensationsper Aveson v Lord Kinnaird statement about health or bodily sensation made at the time admissible as part of res gestae to prove its existence, dying declarations its admissibility as exception to hearsay rule not expressly provided in Act, however, prior to its repeal by s5 of Criminal Procedure Amendment Code, was admissible in criminal matters under s270 of Act 30, per R v Jenkins death-bed statement taken from victim, read over and signed by her with a passage that ‘it was made with no hope of recovery‘ is inadmissible because was capable of bearing interpretation that she still hopped that ultimate change might come and she might recover, Akinfe v State SC of Nigeria held that for dying declaration to be admissible, must satisfy:
1-must deal with case of maker’s death
2-casue of death must be in issue
3-trial must be for murder or manslaughter
4-at time of making, deceased must believe himself to be in danger of approving death.
Hollington v Hewthorn CA held conviction was inadmissible in civil action because said judgement merely represented opinion of criminal court which opinion is irrelevant.