Law of Evidence Test

18/05/2020

ID: 004-968

Question 1 Answers

Issue A

Res Gestae is a Latin word which means "things done." This is the rule of law of evidence
and is an exception to hearsay rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is not admissible. It is a
spontaneous declaration made by a person immediately after an event and before the mind
has an opportunity to conjure a false story. It represents an exception to the hearsay rule.
There are three factors that should be present for Res Gastae to be admitted, and these were
elaborated in the case of Ratten v R [1972] AC 378 as:

i. it must be an incident starting in nature so as to provide a spontaneous reaction.

ii. There must be no room for fabrication of the story.

iii. The statement must relate to the incident.

The courts in The People v John Nguni (1977) Z.R. 376 Held that Evidence of a statement
made by a person who is not called as a witness may be admitted as part of the res gestae and
can be treated as an exception to the hearsay rule provided it is made in such conditions of
involvement or pressure as to exclude the possibility of concoction or distortion to the
advantage of the maker or to the disadvantage of the accused.

Fred Chisela in his circumstance of pain after the fall had no time at all to concoct a statement
that was false in order to get something out of it. He was in pain and his thoughts were
directed to tell the truth after such a painful experience. Justice Lockwood in the American
case of Keefe v State said: “…….Since this utter is made under the immediate and
uncontrolled domination of the senses rather than reason and reflection, and during the brief
period when consideration is of self-interest is could not have been fully brought to bear, the
utterance may be taken as expressing the real belief of the speaker as to the facts just
observed by him.”

Therefore, the deceased’s statement is admissible to show that the death was an accident.
Issue B

A Confession is an admission made by the person charged with a crime stating or suggesting
that he committed that crime.

In the speech of Lord Summers in the case of Ibrahim v R [1914] AC 599, “Involuntary
confessions are not admitted because it is quite unsafe to receive a statement made under fear
or promise or promise of reward…..” James said to Steve “Say something for your own good.
Mr. Kalila may allow you to keep your job.” This was clearly both a promise and a fear
inducing statement made to the accused which in turn induced him to make the incriminating
statement which was later recorded and given to the authorities to be used against the
accused.

To exclude a confession, the inducement must come from a person in authority. The Security
guard James who was in charge of the security activities in the Kalila Stores is, based on his
normal duties which pertain to the responsibility of any losses incurred in the stores, a person
in authority unlike the village headman in Abel Banda v The People (1986) Z.R. 105.