THE RES GESTAE RULE A REFORMULATION

IFOTOSTAT TlGAi( DIBENARKAN r

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

Table of cases cited

Table of statutes

General Introduction

Chapter

R~ARSAY-GENERALRULE

Chapter II

RES GESTAE

A. Doctrine of Pes Gestae

H. History of doctrine

Chapter III

;page

•.•....•.•• v

........... vi

viii

........... ix

SCCPE ........... 8

A. Constituent Fact . .......... 9

B. The fact in issue per se ........... 10

C. Constituent Incidents ........... 10

D. Cummulative and ContinuosTransaction

E. Documentary TransactionF. Accompanying FactG. Incidents other than declatationH. Declaration accompanying acts

Scope of th9 principle requirements

• •••••••••• 11

11

11

12

13

•••••••••• 14

Despite its apparent clarity in section

6 of our ~alaysian Evirtence Act 1950 ( Revised 1971)the term res gestae has occasioned many vexed problems.~ost of these problems Rrise because there is no

consistent usage of this term. Difficulties still persist,as ultimately the sound exercise of court discretion indetermining ~ach issue, so a new and rationaJ basis has

to te laid to resolve an old controvesy.

The aim of the 8tudy is therefore to reviewthis area of the law of 3vidence especially by reference

to these rlifferent uses of the term.

In the preparation of the project paper researcheswere made in the MARA Institute of Technology's Perpustakaalll

Tun Abdul Razak, the University of JV'alaya Law Library and

the Kuala Lumpur National Library.

The writer had derived some valuables guidanceand assistance from a number of people in writing this

project paper. It is his wish to acknowledge these fewpeople without whom this project paper may not have beenaccomplished in its purpose. Special acknowledgement goesto the writer's supervisor, Mr. Hardial Singh, Lectureron Law of Evidence at the MARA Institute of Technology.

The writer also wishes to express his thanksand appreciation to the officials from the libraries ,mentioned above who kindly granted his access to thevarious relevant materials and documents.

6th. June, 1985ROSLI BIN MOHD SIDE!

vi

TABLE OF CASES CITED

Att. Gen. (Jersey) v. Norton (1967) 1 A.C 464 ••••••••• 12

Averson v. Kinnairrl 6 "Sast 1.98 •• 0 5

Babula1 v. W.I. Ltd. A1957 C.709 •••••••••••••••••••••37

Chhotka v. S. A1958 C 482 ••••••••••••••••••• 0••••••••37

Com. v. Hac k e t (1 861) 2 A11en 136 ( Ma s s ) •••••••••••••• 19

D.P.P V. Christie (1914) A.C 545 .0 •..•••.•••...•.• o •• 21

Gilbert v. R (1907) 3R, SCR 284 Supreme Ct. of Canada.1 7

Harnza Kunju v. R. (1963) T! .L.J 228 ••••••••••••••••••• ~9

Kameshwar v. R 1951 A.I,.J 149 .00 ••••••••••••••••••••37

Kanapathy v. R. (1960) M.L.J 260000 •••••••••• 0••• 0••• ~9

Khijiruddin v. R. 1926 C 139: 92 Ie 442 ••••••••••••••38

Krish~am v. S A1964 As 5~ •••••••• 0••••••••••••••••• )8

Mohamerl l~in Allapitdlay & ers. v. R (195f3) M.l.J 197 ••~3

Noor ~ohd. v. Imtlaz A A1940 0 130 37

O'Hara v. Central S.M.T Co. 1941 S.C 363,381 ••••••••• 21

Pratap Singh v. State of ~j.F 1970 Jab. L.J 797 ••••••• 37

R v. Barlow .. . ...................... 19,R v. Barney . . , . ...................... 19,20

R v. Bedingfield (1879) 14 Cox C.C ~41 •• 0••••••••••• 14,32,

............. 33,34

R v. Bond (1 ':106) 2 K.B 389 . ....................... 12

ClI.pter

HEARSAY - GENERAL RULE

Tlie Hearsay rule

"Hearsay" in its le~al sense is confined to taatkiftd et eVidence, waich dees net derive its credibility selely!re. tae credit due to the witness hiMselt, but rest alse i.part en tae veracity and cOllipetency ef sOlie etaer persen tr.mwaem ta. witness May kave received tke informatieft. 1.

T_e ~el'leral rule is tltat kearsay is excluct•• and bestevidence must always be ~iven. I~ i. exeluded •• tae ~ound

tikat it is always desireble in tke interest et justice t. ~et

tke persen wkose statement is relied upen, 1.te eeurt fer it.exallliaatie. in tae re~ular way ift order seurces et inaccuracycan be beet breu~kt to li~kt and exposed by tke test et creesexaaiaatien.

Sect1oll,60 et eur Evidence ~et requires tkat eralevidence aust, in all cases waatever, b. d1reet. Tkis secti ••enacts tke ~eneral rule a~ainst tke adlllissien et hearsay.videnee .,2 SectieJl 32 cOllsti tutee turtker' exeeptien te tIterule waiea excluaea kearsay. The ~enera~·~euDd et admissibility.t the evidenee reterred to this aeetien 1e.(s.32) is that.e better evidence ceuld be produced. I. tais exceptie.,tae direct oral evidel'lce et tae tact as alse the eppertunityter testtn~ tae trutll ef sucll evidence by crGSS exalllinatieni. dispenced wit. beeaused ot tne stated exception.

Tke exception Hearsay rule embedied in tllis sectienare with regard to statement, on declaratiom by person since

decease er missing ete. Taese declaration, .ay be eral .rwritten and are receivable either fer or a~ainst tme partie~.

Tae caaraeter et tae statement and tne subject te waick it

refer indicate tltat it is reasonable te expect the hi~.est

de~ees ot trutlt possible in that circumstances and theincentive er desire to talsity tlle statelllen~ is practically.e.-existence.