First of all, both of these matters discuss about res gestae. Res gestae literally means thing done , a transaction or essential circumstances surrounding the subject.

            First, the common law position of res gestae is narrower and stricter. It is said so because under the common law, the doctrine only allows evidence if not absolutely contemporaneous with the action or event in issue, it must be closely associated with it in time, place and circumstances as to be part of the thing done. This is because the purpose is to avoid the fabrication of evidence and concoction. Under the common law, the doctrine requires two conditions where the facts must must be contemporaneous and spontaneous, the incident must occur at the same time and same place because it must satisfy two conditions.

            Whereas in Section 6, it is more liberal as there is no insistence as regards to close relationship regarding with time and place. Hence, in order that different acts may constitute the same transaction, they must be connected with proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, and continuity of action, purpose and design. The question of whether the connection is sufficient or not must always depend on the circumstances of each case and Section 6 should be read together with Section 7, 8, and 9. 

            Second, under the common law, the doctrine of res gestae was only recognized when the incident happened before the actual crime. This doctrine differs with Malaysian law because s. 6 of the Evidence Act 1950 provides for the act or thing done before the actual incident and after the actual incident. Therefore, it is more flexible, liberal and wider as governed under s. 6 of the Evidence Act 1950, where it includes the incidents which happened at different times and places.

            To conclude, it is suggested that if the nature of the fact before the court is so closely connected to the fact in issue, it would be better contemporaneous and spontaneous due to the fact that it is more reliable and justifiable in establishing justice.

Prepared By : MOHAMAD AZRIFF FIRDAUS (A127453)
12/13/2012 02:14:28 pm

i truly agree as to the differences between common law position and Section 6 of the evidence act and i also belief that the position in common law is just like a wired microphone, where the connection is very obvious and under section 6 of the Evidence Act, its like a wireless microphone whereby though the connection is unseen but somehow it is connected.


Leave a Reply.

law of evidence