Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback United Kingdom Legislation for Tonga

Criminal Evidence Act 1965

LAWS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

THE CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1965

(1965 c. 20)

An Act to make certain trade or business records admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings

[2nd June 1965]

Courts-martial. See the Introductory Note to the Criminal Procedure Act 1865, p. 837, ante.

Northern Ireland. This Act does not apply; see s. 2(3), post.
______________________________

1. Admissibility of certain trade or business records

(1) In any criminal proceedings where direct oral evidence of a fact would be admissible, any statement contained in a document and tending to establish that fact shall, on production of the document, be admissible as evidence of that fact if-

(a) the document is, or forms part of, a record relating to any trade or business and compiled, in the course of that trade or business, from information supplied (whether directly or indirectly) by persons who have, or may reasonably be supposed to have, personal knowledge of the matters dealt with in the information they supply; and

(b) the person who supplied the information recorded in the statement in question is dead, or beyond the seas, or unfit by reason of his bodily or mental condition to attend as a witness, or cannot with reasonable diligence be identified or found, or cannot reasonably be expected (having regard to the time which has elapsed since he supplied the information and to all the circumstances) to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in the information he supplied.

(2) For the purpose of deciding whether or not a statement is admissible as evidence by virtue of this section, the court may draw any reasonable inference from the form or content of the document in which the statement is contained, and may, in deciding or not a person is fit to attend as a witness, act on a certificate purporting to be a certificate of a fully registered medical practitioner.

(3) In estimating the weight, if any, to be attached to a statement admissible as evidence by virtue of this section regard shall be had to all the circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement, and, in particular, to the question whether or not the person who supplied the information recorded in the statement did so contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the facts stated, and to the question whether or not that person, or any person concerned with making or keeping the record containing the statement, had any incentive to conceal or misrepresent the facts.

(4) In this section “statement” includes any representation of fact, whether made in words or otherwise, “document” includes any device by means of which information is recorded or stored and “business” includes any public transport, public utility or similar undertaking carried on by a local authority and the activities of the Post Office.

______________________________
NOTES

General Note. This Act makes admissible as evidence in criminal cases certain commercial records which until the decision of the House of Lords in Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1965] A.C. 1001; [1964] 2 All E.R. 881, had been generally thought to be properly admissible. In that case it was held that manufacturers' records of cylinder block numbers were inadmissible to confirm the identification of stolen cars as this evidence was hearsay which could not be brought within any established exception to the rule against the admission of such evidence. This Act accordingly amends the law to make such records admissible in criminal proceedings where direct oral evidence of the facts in question would be admissible and the conditions set out in paras. (a) and (b) of sub-s. (1) of this section are satisfied. This amendment was modelled on that made in relation to civil proceedings by the Evidence Act 1938, ss. 1 and 2, pp. 878, 879, ante.

Criminal proceedings. It is difficult to say what is now the test for deciding what are to be regarded as criminal proceedings. Such authorities as there are (see, in particular. A.-G. v. Radloff [1854] EngR 636; (1854), 10 Exch. 84 and Parker v. Green (1862), 2 B. & S. 299, at p. 311, per Crompton, J.) are not very helpful. Yet, it appears that the proper test is not the subject matter or object but the nature of the proceedings.

Direct oral evidence ... would be admissible. As to direct oral evidence, see 15 Halsbury's Laws (3rd Edn.) 418, and as to facts which may be proved, see ibid. 279 et seq.

Trade or business. Although there is some authority for saying that the expression, “trade” and “business” are synonymous (see, in particular, Grainger & Son v. Gough, [1896] A.C. 325, at p. 343, per Lord Morris), the balance of authority is to the effect that “business” is a wider term than “trade”; see, in particular, Re A Debtor (No. 3 of 1926), [1927] 1 Ch. 97; [1926] All E.R. Rep. 337, C.A., and Re A Debtor (No. 490 of 1935), [1936] Ch. 237, C.A. In fact it has been said that “the word ‘business’ means almost anything which is an occupation, as distinguished from a pleasure - anything which is an occupation or duty which requires attention is a business”; see Rolls v. Miller (1884), 27 Ch.D. 71, C.A., at p. 88, per Lindley, L.J. But the term “business” has perhaps to be confined to a continuous occupation which by its very nature involves obligations, legal or otherwise to others; cf. Re A Debtor (No. 3 of 1926), supra, at p. 106 and p. 341, respectively, per Scrutton, L.J. In any case it is obvious that the occupation of a whole-time employee is not a business within the meaning of the Act; cf. Robbins v. Inland Revenue Comrs., [1920] 2 K.B. 677, C.A.; but see, in particular, Re Bowie, Ex parte Breull (1880), 16 Ch.D. 484; [1874-80] All E.R. Rep. 646, C.A. On the other hand the expression “business” is clearly wide enough to cover a profession; see, in particular, Re Williams’ Will Trusts, Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China v. Williams, [1953] Ch. 13S; [1953] 1 All E.R. 536.

Note also sub-s. (4) of this section.

Admissible as evidence. It should be noted that in a criminal case the court may always disallow evidence if its admission would operate unfairly against an accused; see, in particular, Kuruma v. R., [1955] A.C. 197; [1955] 1 All E.R. 236, P.C., at p. 204 and p. 239, respectively; and see, further, Selvey v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1968] 2 All E.R. 497, H.L.; but see also Murdoch v. Taylor, [1965] A.C. 574; [1965] 1 All E.R. 406.

Beyond the seas. There is authority for saying that Ireland is “beyond the seas”; see Lane v. Bennett (1836), 1 M. & W. 70. The Continent of Europe is certainly "beyond the seas"; cf. Lane v. Bennett, supra, and Infields, Ltd. v. Rosen, [1939] 1 All E.R. 121.

Unfit ... to attend as a witness. Viz., at the time when the statement is tendered in evidence; see Ozzard-Low v. Ozzard-Low and Wonham, [1953] P. 272; [1953] 2 All E.R. 550.

Cannot reasonably be expected ... to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in the information he supplied. This provision recognises that, although the person having knowledge of the facts should be called to give evidence whenever practicable, the evidence of a central record (as was kept by the manufacturers of the cars involved in Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1965] A.C. 1001; [1964] 2 All E.R. 881) might be more reliable than the recollection of the workman on the assembly line.

Fully registered medical practitioner. For meaning, see the Medical Act 1956, s. 52(2), in conjunction with s. 54(1) and s. 57(2), Vol. 21, title Medicine and Pharmacy.

Any device by means of which information is recorded or stored. The definition of "document" takes account of modern techniques for the keeping and storage of information by microfilm, computer or tape recording. The statement need not be recorded in words but may be recorded, e.g., by symbols or even by electronic impulses stored in a computer.
______________________________

2. Short title, saving and extent

(1) This Act may be cited as the Criminal Evidence Act 1965.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the admissibility of any evidence which would be admissible apart from the provisions of this Act.

(3) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.

-------------------------------------------------------