(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 the proceedings;
(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 117 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.
Cases considering section 124 28
[2009] UKSC 14 · 9 December 2009
The provision allows material challenging an absent witness's credibility, including some material which could otherwise only have been put in cross-examination. It counterbalances the absence of personal cross-examination (see para [36]).
[2026] EWCA Crim 903 · 15 July 2026Interprets
The court interpreted section 124 as permitting material relevant to the maker’s credibility, including previous inconsistent statements, so the jury could assess reliability. Such material did not automatically bar admission. (see paras [20]; [26]; [39]-[41])
The court treated subsection (2) as preserving the admissibility of evidence relevant to credibility that would have been admissible had the maker testified in person. (see paras [20]; [26])
The court applied section 124(2)(c) to admit the earlier inconsistent account so the jury could assess the later statement; inconsistency alone did not require exclusion. (see paras [39]-[41])
The court treated subsection (3) as allowing, with leave, evidence of credibility matters that could have been put in cross-examination, supporting jury assessment of the hearsay. (see paras [20]; [26])
[2026] EWCA Crim 709 · 22 May 2026
The court treated section 124 as permitting undermining evidence and inconsistent material to be used to test hearsay. Such material did not automatically require exclusion, and the hearsay was properly admitted. (see paras [16], [19]-[23])
8 more judgments, and what each says about section 124, are in the
case-law panel in the full Act.
421.This section makes provision for challenges to the credibility of the maker of a hearsay statement who does not give oral evidence in person in the proceedings. If such hearsay statement is admitted as evidence of a matter stated section 124 provides certain rights for the person against whom hearsay evidence has been admitted to produce, in specified circumstances, evidence to discredit the maker of the statement or to show that he has contradicted himself. Section 124 thus provides a replacement for the corresponding provisions in section 28(2) and paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the CJA 1988.