in order to prevent the relevant person giving oral evidence in the proceedings
(whether at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement).
102 Business and other documents
(1) In criminal proceedings a statement contained in a document is admissible as
evidence of any matter stated if—
(a) oral evidence given in the proceedings would be admissible as
evidence of that matter,
(b) the requirements of subsection (2) are satisfied, and
(c) the requirements of subsection (5) are satisfied, in a case where
subsection (4) requires them to be.
(2) The requirements of this subsection are satisfied if—
(a) the document or the part containing the statement was created or
received by a person in the course of a trade, business, profession or
other occupation, or as the holder of a paid or unpaid office,
(b) the person who supplied the information contained in the statement
(the relevant person) had or may reasonably be supposed to have had
personal knowledge of the matters dealt with, and
(c) each person (if any) through whom the information was supplied from
the relevant person to the person mentioned in paragraph (a) received
the information in the course of a trade, business, profession or other
occupation, or as the holder of a paid or unpaid office.
(3) The persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) may be the
(4) The additional requirements of subsection (5) must be satisfied if the
(a) was prepared for the purposes of pending or contemplated criminal
proceedings, or for a criminal investigation, but
(b) was not prepared in accordance with section 3 of the Criminal Justice
(International Co-operation) Act 1990 (c. 5) or an order under
paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)
(which relate to overseas evidence).
(5) The requirements of this subsection are satisfied if—
(a) any of the five conditions mentioned in section 101(2) is satisfied
(absence of relevant person etc), or
(b) the relevant person cannot reasonably be expected to have any
recollection of the matters dealt with in the statement (having regard to
the length of time since he supplied the information and all other
(6) A statement is not admissible under this section if the court makes a direction
to that effect under subsection (7).
(7) The court may make a direction under this subsection if satisfied that the
statement’s reliability as evidence for the purpose for which it is tendered is
doubtful in view of—
(a) its contents,
(b) the source of the information contained in it,
(c) the way in which or the circumstances in which the information was
supplied or received, or
(d) the way in which or the circumstances in which the document
concerned was created or received.
103 Preservation of certain common law categories of admissibility
(1) The following rules of law are preserved.
Public information etc
1 Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings—
(a) published works dealing with matters of a public nature
(such as histories, scientific works, dictionaries and maps) are
admissible as evidence of facts of a public nature stated in
(b) public documents (such as public registers, and returns made
under public authority with respect to matters of public
interest) are admissible as evidence of facts stated in them,
(c) records (such as the records of certain courts, treaties, Crown
grants, pardons and commissions) are admissible as evidence
of facts stated in them, or
(d) evidence relating to a person’s age or date or place of birth
may be given by a person without personal knowledge of the
Reputation as to character
2 Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings evidence of a
person’s reputation is admissible for the purpose of proving his
good or bad character.
The rule is preserved only so far as it allows the court to treat such
evidence as proving the matter concerned.
Reputation or family tradition
3 Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings evidence of
reputation or family tradition is admissible for the purpose of
proving or disproving—
(a) pedigree or the existence of a marriage,
(b) the existence of any public or general right, or
(c) the identity of any person or thing.
The rule is preserved only so far as it allows the court to treat such
evidence as proving or disproving the matter concerned.
4 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).
5 Any rule of law relating to the admissibility of confessions or mixed
statements in criminal proceedings.
Admissions by agents etc
6 Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings—
(a) an admission made by an agent of a defendant is admissible
against the defendant as evidence of any matter stated, or
(b) a statement made by a person to whom a defendant refers a
person for information is admissible against the defendant as
evidence of any matter stated.
7 Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings a statement
made by a party to a common enterprise is admissible against
another party to the enterprise as evidence of any matter stated.
8 Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings an expert
witness may draw on the body of expertise relevant to his field.
(2) With the exception of the rules preserved by this section, the common law rules
governing the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings are
104 Inconsistent statements
(1) If in criminal proceedings a person gives oral evidence and—
(a) he admits making a previous inconsistent statement, or
(b) a previous inconsistent statement made by him is proved by virtue of
section 3, 4 or 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c. 18),
the statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral
evidence by him would be admissible.
(2) If in criminal proceedings evidence of an inconsistent statement by any person
is given under section 109(2)(c), the statement is admissible as evidence of any
matter stated in it of which oral evidence by that person would be admissible.
105 Other previous statements of witnesses
(1) This section applies where a person (the witness) is called to give evidence in
(2) If a previous statement by the witness is admitted as evidence to rebut a
suggestion that his oral evidence has been fabricated, that statement is
admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by the
witness would be admissible.
(3) A statement made by the witness in a document—
(a) which is used by him to refresh his memory while giving evidence,
(b) on which he is cross-examined, and
(c) which as a consequence is received in evidence in the proceedings,
is admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by him
would be admissible.
(4) A previous statement by the witness is admissible as evidence of any matter
stated of which oral evidence by him would be admissible, if—
(a) any of the following three conditions is satisfied, and
(b) while giving evidence the witness indicates that to the best of his belief
he made the statement, and that to the best of his belief it states the
(5) The first condition is that the statement identifies or describes a person, object
(6) The second condition is that the statement was made by the witness when the
matters stated were fresh in his memory but he does not remember them, and
cannot reasonably be expected to remember them, well enough to give oral
evidence of them in the proceedings.
(7) The third condition is that—
(a) the witness claims to be a person against whom an offence has been
(b) the offence is one to which the proceedings relate,
(c) the statement consists of a complaint made by the witness (whether to
a person in authority or not) about conduct which would, if proved,
constitute the offence or part of the offence,
(d) the complaint was made as soon as could reasonably be expected after
the alleged conduct,
(e) the complaint was not made as a result of a threat or a promise, and
(f) before the statement is adduced the witness gives oral evidence in
connection with its subject matter.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) the fact that the complaint was elicited (for
example, by a leading question) is irrelevant unless a threat or a promise was
106 Multiple hearsay
(1) If there is a series of statements not made in oral evidence (such as “A said that
B said that C shot the deceased”) sections 99 and 101 to 105 apply as follows.
(2) If a statement—
(a) is relied on as evidence of a matter stated in it, and
(b) is admissible for that purpose only under section 101 or a rule
preserved by section 103,
the fact that the statement was made must be proved by evidence admissible
otherwise than under section 101.
(a) sections 99 and 101 to 105 apply to the admissibility of each statement,
(b) different statements may be admissible under different sections (or
different provisions of the same section).
107 Documents produced as exhibits
(1) This section applies if on a trial before a judge and jury for an offence—
(a) a statement made in a document is admitted in evidence under section
104 or 105, and
(b) the document or a copy of it is produced as an exhibit.
(2) The exhibit must not accompany the jury when they retire to consider their
(a) the court considers it appropriate, or
(b) all the parties to the proceedings agree that it should accompany the
108 Capability to make statement
(1) Nothing in section 101, 104 or 105 makes a statement admissible as evidence if
it was made by a person who did not have the required capability at the time
when he made the statement.
(2) Nothing in section 102 makes a statement admissible as evidence if any person
who, in order for the requirements of section 102(2) to be satisfied, must at any
time have supplied or received the information concerned or created or
received the document or part concerned—
(a) did not have the required capability at that time, or
(b) cannot be identified but cannot reasonably be assumed to have had the
required capability at that time.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person has the required capability if he is
(a) understanding questions put to him about the matters stated, and
(b) giving answers to such questions which can be understood.
(4) Where by reason of this section there is an issue as to whether a person had the
required capability when he made a statement—
(a) proceedings held for the determination of the issue must take place in
the absence of the jury (if there is one);
(b) in determining the issue the court may receive expert evidence and
evidence from any person to whom the statement in question was
(c) the burden of proof on the issue lies on the party seeking to adduce the
statement, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.