Howley, R v

Whether possession of a bladed article crosses the custody threshold depends on all the circumstances. The absence of aggressive or violent use, and the absence of previous convictions for violence, do not preclude custody where the weapon is readily available and there is no satisfactory explanation for its presence.

Once custody is justified, the sentence must fairly reflect the offender’s guilt and culpability. A materially comparable sentencing decision may assist the court in assessing a proportionate custodial term.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Hull Crown Court to possessing a bladed article. Police had stopped him while he was driving his camper van erratically on a motorway. He was over the alcohol limit. A large knife in a scabbard was found on the front passenger seat. Although he initially described it as a rabbiting knife, he gave no explanation for its presence there and had not used it for rabbiting for six months.

He received three months’ imprisonment. Two offensive-weapons counts were not pursued and not-guilty verdicts were entered under section 17. With leave of the single judge, he appealed his sentence as wrong in principle and/or manifestly excessive. The central issues were whether custody was justified and, if so, what term properly reflected his culpability.

1. Appeal allowed. The court substituted a sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment for the three-month sentence imposed at Hull Crown Court.

2. The court held that the custody threshold was crossed. The appellant had a large knife with an eight-and-a-half-inch blade readily available on the front passenger seat while driving erratically on a motorway when over the alcohol limit. He had supplied no satisfactory explanation for the knife’s presence.

3. The absence of aggressive or violent use of the knife did not prevent custody. Nor did the absence of convictions for violence. Those matters nevertheless formed part of the assessment of the appellant’s guilt and culpability.

4. The court treated R v Stewart as a materially similar sentencing comparison. In that case, the weapon had not been used aggressively or violently and six weeks’ imprisonment had been held proper. A like term adequately reflected this appellant’s guilt and culpability. The substituted term would, as the court understood, almost certainly result in his immediate release.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in [2003] EWCA Crim 1859 and substituted six weeks’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Hull: Following a guilty plea to possession of a bladed article, Mrs Recorder Cahill QC imposed three months’ imprisonment.