Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 119

Inconsistent statements

Part 11 Evidence

(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 124(2)(c), the statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated in it of which oral evidence by that person would be admissible.

Definitions used in section 119 2

criminal proceedings

“criminal proceedings” means criminal proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply;

Defined in s.134(1) · see it in the full Act
oral evidence

“oral evidence” includes evidence which, by reason of any disability, disorder or other impairment, a person called as a witness gives in writing or by signs or by way of any device;

Defined in s.134(1) · see it in the full Act

Cases considering section 119 40

Muldoon, R. v

[2021] EWCA Crim 381 · 18 March 2021Interprets

Section 119(1) requires oral evidence in the context of a prior inconsistent statement. A witness who gives only preliminary evidence and then remains silent has not supplied inconsistent testimony for this gateway. The statements were therefore inadmissible under the provision (see paras [37]-[42]). The first alternative requires the witness to admit making a previous inconsistent statement. It was unavailable because neither witness made such an admission (see paras [37]-[38]; [42]). The second alternative requires the previous inconsistent statement to be proved under sections 3, 4 or 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865. On the facts, section 3 did not permit proof of an inconsistent statement because silence was not inconsistent testimony (see paras [38]-[42]).

Jackson, R. v

[2020] EWCA Crim 411 · 10 March 2020

The Court held that the witness's previous inconsistent statement became admissible once he was properly treated as hostile and had said that its relevant contents were untrue (see [9]).

Nguyen, R. v

[2020] EWCA Crim 140 · 5 February 2020Interprets

Section 119 makes a previous inconsistent statement substantive evidence of its truth against the person who made it. It does not make that statement evidence against a co-defendant; admission against another defendant required section 114(1)(d). (see paras [62]; [63]; [64])

20 more judgments, and what each says about section 119, are in the case-law panel in the full Act.

Explanatory note

413.This section clarifies the relationship between hearsay evidence and previous inconsistent statements. It provides that if a witness admits that he has made a previous inconsistent statement or it has been proved that he made such an inconsistent statement, it is not only evidence which undermines his ‘credibility’ (as someone who makes inconsistent statements) but it is also evidence of the truth of its contents.

414.Subsection (2) envisages the following type of situation. A makes a statement to the police that she saw B ‘outside the jewellers’ at midday on Monday’. A does not testify at trial but her statement is admitted under Section 116. As explained below, Section 124 provides that evidence can be admitted in this type of situation in relation to the credibility of A. Subsection (2)(c) of Section 124 provides that evidence can be admitted to prove that A had made another statement inconsistent with this statement (for example, A had said earlier that she did not see B on Monday at all). Section119(2) provides that if there is such an inconsistent statement, it not only goes to the credibility of A, but it is also admissible as to the truth of its contents (that A did not see B on Monday).

All the explanatory notes for the Act

Amendments and notes

1 notes from legislation.gov.uk

Commencement

  1. I74S. 119 wholly in force at 4.4.2005, see s. 336(3) and S.I. 2005/950, art. 2(1), Sch. 1 para. 6 (subject to art. 2(2), Sch. 2)