Whither, hither and thither, Res Gestae? A comparative analysis of its relevance and application

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Edwin Teong Ying Keat
{"title":"Whither, hither and thither, Res Gestae? A comparative analysis of its relevance and application","authors":"Edwin Teong Ying Keat","doi":"10.1177/13657127211036168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Singapore, the common law doctrine of res 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.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"326 - 349"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211036168","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Singapore, the common law doctrine of res 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.
在哪里,在哪里,盖斯塔?对其相关性和应用的比较分析
在新加坡,由于道听途说证据的法定包含,普通法中的格式塔原则(RG)有灭绝的风险。此外,RG的测试尚未确定。因此,本文认为RG仍然是相关的,但必须主要应用。这是相关的,因为首先,根除自1808年以来存在的学说是不明智的。其次,对来自英国、印度、新西兰和澳大利亚的病例的比较分析表明,RG仍有必要。第三,修改适用该法的方法实际上可以排除不可接受的证据。本文进一步提出了一个三股测试。首先,作为一项初步要求,客观上不涉及任何混合物。第二,证据必须与构成同一交易一部分的事实有关,但《证据法》第32(1)条没有考虑到这一点。第三,证据必须具有足够的证明价值,以超过其不利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信