R v Andrews
A statement made by the victim of an attack identifying his attackers was admissible under the res gestae exception, because his mind was so dominated by the event that the possibility of concoction could be disregarded.
Facts
The victim was stabbed by two men who had broken into his flat. Shortly afterwards, he went downstairs to a neighbour's flat for help, and when the police arrived a few minutes later, he told them the names of his attackers. He later died from his injuries. At the trial of one of the attackers for murder, the prosecution relied on the victim's statement identifying him, and he was convicted.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the statement was admissible as part of the res gestae. Lord Ackner said that the primary question the judge must ask is whether the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded, and that to answer it, the judge must consider the circumstances in which the statement was made, to be satisfied that the event was so unusual or startling or dramatic as to dominate the thoughts of the victim, so that his utterance was an instinctive reaction to that event, giving no real opportunity for reasoned reflection. The statement must be so closely associated with the event which excited it that the mind of the declarant was still dominated by the event. The common law exception is preserved by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Related cases on hearsay
- Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom (2012) 54 EHRR 23
- Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] AC 1001
- R v Blastland [1986] AC 41
- R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14, [2010] 2 AC 373
- R v Kearley [1992] 2 AC 228
- R v Riat [2012] EWCA Crim 1509
- R v Y [2008] EWCA Crim 10
- Ratten v The Queen [1972] AC 378
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
