Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 105

“Evidence to correct a false impression”

Part 11 Evidence

(1)For the purposes of section 101(1)(f)—

(a)the defendant gives a false impression if he is responsible for the making of an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression about the defendant;

(b)evidence to correct such an impression is evidence which has probative value in correcting it.

(2)A defendant is treated as being responsible for the making of an assertion if—

(a)the assertion is made by the defendant in the proceedings (whether or not in evidence given by him),

(b)the assertion was made by the defendant—

(i)on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or

(ii)on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it,

and evidence of the assertion is given in the proceedings,

(c)the assertion is made by a witness called by the defendant,

(d)the assertion is made by any witness in cross-examination in response to a question asked by the defendant that is intended to elicit it, or is likely to do so, or

(e)the assertion was made by any person out of court, and the defendant adduces evidence of it in the proceedings.

(3)A defendant who would otherwise be treated as responsible for the making of an assertion shall not be so treated if, or to the extent that, he withdraws it or disassociates himself from it.

(4)Where it appears to the court that a defendant, by means of his conduct (other than the giving of evidence) in the proceedings, is seeking to give the court or jury an impression about himself that is false or misleading, the court may if it appears just to do so treat the defendant as being responsible for the making of an assertion which is apt to give that impression.

(5) In subsection (4) “conduct” includes appearance or dress.

(6)Evidence is admissible under section 101(1)(f) only if it goes no further than is necessary to correct the false impression.

(7)Only prosecution evidence is admissible under section 101(1)(f).

Definitions used in section 105 5

defendant

“defendant”, in relation to criminal proceedings, means a person charged with an offence in those proceedings; and “co-defendant”, in relation to a defendant, means a person charged with an offence in the same proceedings;

Defined in s.112(1) · see it in the full Act
the court

(2) In relation to such an application or reference, any reference to “the court” in section 269(2) to (5) and Schedule 21 is to be read as a reference to the High Court.

Defined in Sch.22 para.11(2) · see it in the full Act
probative value

“probative value”, and “relevant” (in relation to an item of evidence), are to be read in accordance with section 109;

Defined in s.112(1) · see it in the full Act
offence

“offence” includes a service offence;

Defined in s.112(1) · see it in the full Act
prosecution evidence

“prosecution evidence” means evidence which is to be (or has been) adduced by the prosecution, or which a witness is to be invited to give (or has given) in cross-examination by the prosecution;

Defined in s.112(1) · see it in the full Act

Cases considering section 105 30

R v Alan Ranns

[2026] EWCA Crim 1233 · 17 September 2026Limits

Defines a false impression by reference to an express or implied assertion apt to give a misleading impression. The court treated the interview as addressing present lack of sexual interest. (see paras [34], [49]-[51]) Identifies when a defendant is responsible for an assertion. The court did not decide whether disputed remarks satisfied this provision because it treated them as propensity material rather than as the basis of gateway (1)(f). (see paras [34], [43], [52]) Limits evidence under the false-impression gateway to what is necessary to correct the impression. The court held that the old convictions could not perform that corrective function at all. (see paras [34], [49]-[51])

R v Anthony Reid

[2024] EWCA Crim 308 · 6 February 2024Limits

Evidence admitted to correct a false impression must go no further than necessary for that purpose. The indiscriminate use of prison adjudications, including unproved allegations, failed to meet that requirement and was highly prejudicial. (see para [43])

R v Damien Dunstuan

[2023] EWCA Crim 1632 · 12 December 2023Limits

Defines a false impression by reference to an express or implied assertion, for which the defendant is responsible, that is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression. The appellant's answers satisfied that condition. (see paras [22], [24]–[25]) Applies the requirement that corrective evidence have probative value. The nature of the appellant's earlier joint knife offending was sufficiently probative to contradict the impression created by his evidence, despite differences in detail. (see paras [22], [26]–[27]) Defines responsibility to include an assertion made by the defendant in the proceedings. The appellant was responsible for the impression created by his answers in evidence. (see paras [22], [24]) Limits admissible corrective evidence to what is necessary to correct the false impression. The previous convictions and agreed facts stayed within that limit. (see paras [22], [27])

10 more judgments, and what each says about section 105, are in the case-law panel in the full Act.

Explanatory note

376.Section 105 relates to evidence that is admissible under Section 101(1)(f) to correct a false impression given by the defendant. For this provision to apply, the defendant must have been responsible for an assertion that gives a false or misleading impression about himself. This might be done expressly, for example, by claiming to be of good character when this is not the case, or implied, for example, by leading evidence of his conduct that carries an implication that he is of a better character than is actually the case. It may also be done non-verbally, through his conduct in court, such as his appearance or dress (Section 105(4) and (5)). For example, if a defendant were to give a false impression by suggesting he were a priest, he could not escape this provision simply by not making such an assertion verbally but choosing to wear a clerical collar.

377.Section 105(2) sets out the circumstances in which a defendant is to be treated as being responsible for an assertion. These include the defendant making the assertion himself, either in his evidence or in his representative’s presentation of his case or, if used in evidence, when being questioned under caution or on being charged with the offence. It also includes assertions made by defence witnesses, those by any witness if responding to a question by the defendant that was intended (or likely to) elicit it and out of court assertions made by anybody if adduced by the defendant.

378.In correcting the impression, the prosecution (and only the prosecution – see Section 105(7)) may introduce evidence of the defendant’s misconduct that has probative value in correcting it, in other words, is relevant to correcting the false impression. Exactly what evidence is admissible will turn on the facts of the case, in particular, the nature of the misleading impression he has given. Evidence is only admissible to the extent that it is necessary to correct that impression: section 105(6). A defendant may withdraw or disassociate himself from a false or misleading impression. Evidence to correct the impression is not then admissible: section 105(3). In light of this, section 101(3), under which a defendant may apply to have evidence of his bad character excluded, does not apply to this evidence.

All the explanatory notes for the Act