Jolie v R

For an offence under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, having a bladed article with a person requires knowing possession. Where an article has been mislaid, possession may be established if the defendant knew of its presence at the relevant time or was responsible for placing it where it was later found.

The statutory expression good reason requires no judicial gloss. Forgetfulness alone cannot amount to a good reason, but it may be considered with the original reason for the article’s presence and all other circumstances. The jury must first decide possession and then determine the statutory defence on the balance of probabilities.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Southwark of having a kitchen knife with him in a public place, contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The knife was found beneath the driver’s seat of a car which the appellant was driving. He said that it had previously been used to start the car after the keys were lost, but that it had then been mislaid and replaced with borrowed scissors. He denied knowing that the knife remained in the car.

He appealed on the ground that the Recorder had misdirected the jury on knowing possession and on the burden and standard of proof concerning good reason.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was unsafe because the directions on possession and the statutory defence were muddled and, in material respects, wrong. The Crown did not seek a retrial. The appellant was discharged.

2. Section 139(1) required proof that the appellant knowingly had the knife with him. Later forgetfulness does not end possession where a defendant put an article under his control and later forgets it. However, the evidence raised the distinct possibility that the knife was not under the appellant’s control when it was mislaid. The jury should therefore have been directed to find possession only if satisfied either that he knew of the knife’s presence during the journey or that he was responsible for placing it where it was mislaid.

3. Only after finding possession should the jury have considered section 139(4). The appellant then bore the burden of showing, on the balance of probabilities, that he had a good reason for having the knife with him.

4. The words good reason have their ordinary meaning and require no restrictive judicial definition. The court accepted the limited proposition in DPP v Gregson [1993] 96 Cr App R 240 that forgetfulness alone cannot suffice. It rejected any broader approach preventing the tribunal of fact from considering the original reason for the knife’s presence, the alleged forgetfulness and the time involved. Those matters may together establish the defence.

5. The Recorder wrongly stated that forgetfulness could never be a good reason, formulated possession by reference to the knife’s original placement rather than the relevant alternatives, and at points suggested that the appellant had to establish matters to the criminal standard. Proper directions were required on both issues.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against conviction and ordered the appellant’s discharge: [2003] EWCA Crim 1543.
• Crown Court at Southwark: Convicted the appellant on 11 February 2003 of an offence under section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.