(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
102 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 107(2)(c), the statement is admissible as evidence of any
matter stated in it of which oral evidence by that person would be admissible.
103 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
104 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 107 and 99 to 103 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 99 or a rule preserved
by section 101,
the fact that the statement was made must be proved by evidence admissible
otherwise than under section 99.
(a) sections 107 and 99 to 103 apply to the admissibility of each statement,
(b) different statements may be admissible under different sections (or
different provisions of the same section).
105 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
102 or 103, 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
106 Capability to make statement
(1) Nothing in section 99, 102 or 103 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 100 makes a statement admissible as evidence if any person
who, in order for the requirements of section 100(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.
(1) This section applies if in criminal proceedings—
(a) a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admitted as
evidence of a matter stated, and
(b) the maker of the statement does not give oral evidence in connection
with the subject matter of the statement.
(2) In such a case—
(a) any evidence which (if he had given such evidence) would have been
admissible as relevant to his credibility as a witness is so admissible in
(b) evidence may with the court’s leave be given of any matter which (if he
had given such evidence) could have been put to him in cross-
examination as relevant to his credibility as a witness but of which
evidence could not have been adduced by the cross-examining party;
(c) evidence tending to prove that he made (at whatever time) any other
statement inconsistent with the statement admitted as evidence is
admissible for the purpose of showing that he contradicted himself.
(3) If as a result of evidence admitted under this section an allegation is made
against the maker of a statement, the court may permit a party to lead
additional evidence of such description as the court may specify for the
purposes of denying or answering the allegation.
(4) In the case of a statement in a document which is admitted as evidence under
section 100 each person who, in order for the statement to be admissible, must
have supplied or received the information concerned or created or received the
document or part concerned is to be treated as the maker of the statement for
the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) above.
108 Stopping the case where evidence is unconvincing
(1) If on a defendant’s trial before a judge and jury for an offence the court is
satisfied at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution that—
(a) the case against the defendant is based wholly or partly on a statement
not made in oral evidence in the proceedings, and
(b) the evidence provided by the statement is so unconvincing that,
considering its importance to the case against the defendant, his
conviction of the offence would be unsafe,
the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if
it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury.
(a) a jury is directed under subsection (1) to acquit a defendant of an
(b) the circumstances are such that, apart from this subsection, the
defendant could if acquitted of that offence be found guilty of another
the defendant may not be found guilty of that other offence if the court is
satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) in respect of it.
(a) a jury is required to determine under section 4A(2) of the Criminal
Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84) whether a person charged on an
indictment with an offence did the act or made the omission charged,
(b) the court is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) above at any time
after the close of the case for the prosecution that—
(i) the case against the defendant is based wholly or partly on a
statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings, and
(ii) the evidence provided by the statement is so unconvincing that,
considering its importance to the case against the person, a
finding that he did the act or made the omission would be
the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if
it considers that there ought to be a rehearing, discharge the jury.
(4) This section does not prejudice any other power a court may have to direct a
jury to acquit a person of an offence or to discharge a jury.
109 Court’s general discretion to exclude evidence
(1) In criminal proceedings the court may refuse to admit a statement as evidence
of a matter stated if—
(a) the statement was made otherwise than in oral evidence in the
(b) the court is satisfied that the case for excluding the statement, taking
account of the danger that to admit it would result in undue waste of
time, substantially outweighs the case for admitting it, taking account
of the value of the evidence.
(2) Nothing in this Chapter prejudices—
(a) any power of a court to exclude evidence under section 78 of the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (exclusion of unfair evidence),
(b) any other power of a court to exclude evidence at its discretion
(whether by preventing questions from being put or otherwise).
110 Expert evidence: preparatory work
(1) This section applies if—
(a) a statement has been prepared for the purposes of criminal
(b) the person who prepared the statement had or may reasonably be
supposed to have had personal knowledge of the matters stated,
(c) notice is given under the appropriate rules that another person (the
expert) will in evidence given in the proceedings orally or under section
9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80) base an opinion or inference on
the statement, and
(d) the notice gives the name of the person who prepared the statement
and the nature of the matters stated.
(2) In evidence given in the proceedings the expert may base an opinion or
inference on the statement.
(3) If evidence based on the statement is given under subsection (2) the statement
is to be treated as evidence of what it states.
(4) This section does not apply if the court, on an application by a party to the
proceedings, orders that it is not in the interests of justice that it should apply.
(5) The matters to be considered by the court in deciding whether to make an
order under subsection (4) include—
(a) the expense of calling as a witness the person who prepared the
(b) whether relevant evidence could be given by that person which could
not be given by the expert;
(c) whether that person can reasonably be expected to remember the
matters stated well enough to give oral evidence of them.
(6) Subsections (1) to (5) apply to a statement prepared for the purposes of a
criminal investigation as they apply to a statement prepared for the purposes
of criminal proceedings, and in such a case references to the proceedings are to
criminal proceedings arising from the investigation.
(7) The appropriate rules are rules made—
(a) under section 81 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)
(advance notice of expert evidence in Crown Court), or
(b) under section 144 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) by virtue
of section 20(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
(c. 25) (advance notice of expert evidence in magistrates’ courts).
(1) In the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 the following section is inserted
after section 76—
“76A Confessions may be given in evidence for co-accused
(1) In any proceedings a confession made by an accused person may be
given in evidence for another person charged in the same proceedings
(a co-accused) in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the
proceedings and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of this
(2) If, in any proceedings where a co-accused proposes to give in evidence
a confession made by an accused person, it is represented to the court
that the confession was or may have been obtained—
(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or
(b) in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in
the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any
confession which might be made by him in consequence
the court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence for the
co-accused except in so far as it is proved to the court on the balance of
probabilities that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true)
was not so obtained.
(3) Before allowing a confession made by an accused person to be given in
evidence for a co-accused in any proceedings, the court may of its own
motion require the fact that the confession was not obtained as
mentioned in subsection (2) above to be proved in the proceedings on
the balance of probabilities.
(4) The fact that a confession is wholly or partly excluded in pursuance of
this section shall not affect the admissibility in evidence—
(a) of any facts discovered as a result of the confession; or
(b) where the confession is relevant as showing that the accused
speaks, writes or expresses himself in a particular way, of so
much of the confession as is necessary to show that he does so.