SCHEDULE 8Documentary Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
Statements in business documents
2
(1)
Except where it is a statement such as is mentioned in paragraph 3(b) and (c) below, a statement in a document shall be admissible in criminal proceedings as evidence of any fact or opinion of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if the following conditions are satisfied—
(a)
the document was created or received in the course of, or for the purposes of, a business or undertaking or in pursuance of the functions of the holder of a paid or unpaid office;
(b)
the document is, or at any time was, kept by a business or undertaking or by or on behalf of the holder of such an office; and
(c)
the statement was made on the basis of information supplied by a person (whether or not the maker of the statement) who had, or may reasonably be supposed to have had, personal knowledge of the matters dealt with in it.
(2)
Sub-paragraph (1) above applies whether the information contained in the statement was supplied directly or indirectly unless, in the case of information supplied indirectly, it appears to the court that any person through whom it was so supplied did not both receive and supply it in the course of a business or undertaking or as or on behalf of the holder of a paid or unpaid office.
(3)
Where in any proceedings a statement is admitted as evidence by virtue of this paragraph—
(a)
any evidence which, if—
(i)
the maker of the statement; or
(ii)
where the statement was made on the basis of information supplied by another person, such supplier,
had been called as a witness, would have been admissible as relevant to the witness’s credibility shall be so admissible in those proceedings;
(b)
evidence may be given of any matter which, if the maker or as the case may be the supplier had been called as a witness, could have been put to him in cross-examination as relevant to his credibility but of which evidence could not have been adduced by the cross-examining party; and
(c)
evidence tending to prove that the maker or as the case may be the supplier, whether before or after making the statement or supplying the information on the basis of which the statement was made, made (in whatever manner) some other representation which is inconsistent with the statement shall be admissible for the purpose of showing that he has contradicted himself.
(4)
In sub-paragraph (3)(c) above, “representation” does not include a representation in a precognition.