Ratten v The Queen

A telephone call made by a terrified woman shortly before she was shot was admissible, both as original evidence that a call was made and as part of the res gestae.

Citation

[1972] AC 378

Court

Privy Council

Year

1972

Subject

Evidence

Topic

Hearsay

Facts

Mr Ratten was charged with the murder of his wife, who was killed by a shot from his gun. He said that the gun had gone off accidentally while he was cleaning it. A telephone operator gave evidence that, shortly before the time of the shooting, she had received a call from the Rattens' house, in which a hysterical woman's voice had said get me the police please, before the call was cut off. Mr Ratten denied that any call had been made. He was convicted.

Legal principle

The Privy Council dismissed the appeal. Lord Wilberforce said that the evidence was not hearsay insofar as it proved that a call had been made by a woman in a distressed state at the time, which contradicted Mr Ratten's account. Even if the words were relied on as an assertion that the woman was being attacked, they were admissible as part of the res gestae, because they were made in circumstances of spontaneity or involvement in the event, so that the possibility of concoction could be disregarded. The test was whether the statement was so closely associated with the event that it could fairly be said that the mind of the speaker was dominated by it.

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 Andrews [1987] AC 281
• 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

Back to all law cases

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.