Editing Res gestae (section)

== ''Res gestae'' in English hearsay law ==
{{See also|Hearsay in English law}}
The common law ''res gestae'' exception has been preserved under the statutory hearsay regime in s118(4) of the [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]].<ref>{{Cite legislation UK|type=act|year=2003|chapter=44|act=Criminal Justice Act 2003|section=118}}</ref>
{{Quote|text=Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings a statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if—

(a) the statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded,

(b) the statement accompanied an act which can be properly evaluated as evidence only if considered in conjunction with the statement, or

(c) the statement relates to a physical sensation or a mental state (such as intention or emotion).}}
Categories (a) and (c) are the most commonly used.<ref name="BCP">{{cite book |title=Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2024 |date=2023 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780198892489 |editor1=David Ormerod |edition=34 |at=F17.49 |editor2=David Perry}}</ref> The American formulation of "excited utterances" is broadly akin to the English category of "emotionally overpowering".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Coffey |first=Ruth |date=November 27, 2022 |title=Fight, flight, freeze...or lie? Rethinking the principles of res gestae evidence in light of its revival |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13657127221139505 |journal=The International Journal of Evidence & Proof |language=en |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=51–82 |doi=10.1177/13657127221139505 |issn=1365-7127|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

When considering whether to admit hearsay evidence through the ''res gestae'', case law strongly advises judges to consider whether "the possibility of concoction or distortion [can] be disregarded".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Criminal Law - Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Hearsay and Related Topics |url=https://lawcom.gov.uk/document/criminal-law-evidence-in-criminal-proceedings-hearsay-and-related-topics/ |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=Law Commission |at=3.40 |language=en-GB}}</ref>

There has been significant criticism of the exception by judges and legal academics. In 1997, the [[Law Commission (England and Wales)|Law Commission]] argued that the primary use of it was to allow evidence from unavailable witnesses (including those who were deceased or in fear of testifying)—their proposal for a hearsay exception for this specific reason became section 116 of the [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]]. Given the existence of this, "it is difficult to see what useful purpose was served by retaining this group of exceptions to the hearsay rule, because they add little if anything to what is already provided by section 116" argues Professor JR Spencer.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Spencer |first=John R. |title=Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings |date=2014 |publisher=Hart Publishing |isbn=978-1-84946-463-5 |edition=2 |location=Oxford and Portland, Oregon |at=Paragraph 9.27}}</ref>