R. v Sean Giles

Under section 139(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a defendant must prove a specific good reason or lawful authority for having a prohibited bladed article in a public place at the particular time alleged. It is insufficient that the article is part of a multi-purpose implement whose other attachments might have lawful uses.

Where evidence raises a prima facie case of good reason, the issue must go to the jury, even if the defence appears weak. Where there is no evidence capable of amounting to a good reason, the judge may withdraw the issue and direct conviction.

The appellant was acquitted at Cambridge Crown Court of alternative counts of wounding, but was convicted of possessing a bladed article in a public place contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The trial judge directed the jury to convict because the appellant had not raised evidence capable of amounting to a good reason for carrying the knife.

The knife was a lock-knife with an eight-centimetre blade and formed part of a multi-purpose tool. The appellant said that he had used it earlier to renovate a guitar, had returned it to its pouch on his belt, and had no intention of using it as a weapon. By leave of the Single Judge, he appealed on the ground that those matters required the statutory defence to be left to the jury.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant had raised no evidence capable of establishing a good reason for possession, so the judge correctly withdrew the section 139(4) defence from the jury and directed conviction.
2. Section 139 creates an offence of possessing a prohibited bladed or sharply pointed article in a public place, subject to the statutory defence. The defendant bears the legal burden of proving good reason or lawful authority. A lock-knife is not a folding pocket knife because it is not immediately foldable at all times: a further operation is required. The appellant also accepted that the blade exceeded three inches.
3. The statutory question concerns the particular occasion on which the article was carried. A defendant must therefore prove a specific good reason for having it in public at that time. The Court answered the question left open in DPP v Gregson, (1993) 96 Cr App R 240, in that way. The mere fact that a prohibited blade is attached to useful items such as a bottle opener, screwdriver or corkscrew does not supply a general defence. Such an approach would defeat the purpose of the provision.
4. A prima facie evidential case of good reason must be left to the jury, even where it is weak. Here, however, the appellant identified no lawful purpose for carrying the knife when he left home. His earlier use of it for a guitar did not explain its possession in public, and its ordinary storage on his belt was no good reason. The facts illustrated the mischief at which the legislation was directed: the appellant produced the knife during a confrontation.
5. The Court adjourned consideration of both prosecution costs and any defence-costs recovery order pending further enquiries into the appellant’s means.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). By [2003] EWCA Crim 1287, the Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
• Cambridge Crown Court. On 11 September 2001, the appellant was acquitted of the alternative wounding counts and convicted of possessing a bladed article. The trial judge directed conviction after finding that no evidence raised the statutory defence.