Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 125

Stopping the case where evidence is unconvincing

Part 11 Evidence

(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.

(2)Where—

(a)a jury is directed under subsection (1) to acquit a defendant of an offence, and

(b)the circumstances are such that, apart from this subsection, the defendant could if acquitted of that offence be found guilty of another offence,

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.

(3)If—

(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, and

(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 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 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.

Definitions used in section 125 3

defendant

“defendant”, in relation to criminal proceedings, means a person charged with an offence in those proceedings;

Defined in s.134(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
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 125 32

R v Horncastle and others (on appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

[2009] UKSC 14 · 9 December 2009

The judge must stop a case depending wholly or partly on hearsay where that evidence is so unconvincing, considering its importance, that conviction would be unsafe. This safeguard replaces any corroboration requirement (see paras [36]-[38]).

R v Courtney McLeary & Anor

[2026] EWCA Crim 903 · 15 July 2026Interprets

The court applied the section 125 safeguard and held that its substance had been considered; the hearsay was not so unconvincing that the convictions would be unsafe. (see paras [51]-[54]) The court used section 125(1) to frame the duty to stop a jury trial based wholly or partly on hearsay where the statutory safety threshold is met. (see paras [52]-[54]) The court identified the requirement that the case be based wholly or partly on a statement not made in oral evidence; that condition formed part of the section 125 analysis. (see paras [52]-[54]) The court identified the requirement that the statement be so unconvincing, having regard to its importance, that conviction would be unsafe, and found that threshold unmet. (see paras [52]-[54])

R v John McNair

[2025] EWCA Crim 1376 · 3 October 2025

Applies section 125 and refuses to stop the case because the hearsay was capable of proper testing and assessment and the evidential weaknesses did not make a conviction unsafe. (see paras [35]; [48]; [52])

12 more judgments, and what each says about section 125, are in the case-law panel in the full Act.

Explanatory note

422.Subsection (1) imposes a duty on the court to stop a case and either direct the jury to acquit the defendant, or discharge the jury, if the case against him or her is based wholly or partly on an out of court statement which is so unconvincing that, considering its importance to the case, a conviction would be unsafe. This issue only arises in relation to jury trials (and by virtue of paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 to service courts) because in other cases, the finders of fact would be bound to dismiss a case in these circumstances, or order a retrial if appropriate.

423.Similarly, subsection (2) imposes a corresponding duty on the court to direct the jury to acquit of any other offence not charged, of which they could convict by way of an alternative to the offence charged, if the judge is satisfied that a conviction would be unsafe. Subsection (3) extends the duty to cases under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 where a jury is required to determine whether a defendant, who is deemed unfit to plead, did the act (or made the omission) charged.

All the explanatory notes for the Act

Amendments and notes

1 notes from legislation.gov.uk

Commencement

  1. I80S. 125 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)