Bown, R v

Under section 139(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the judge must first decide whether the explanation advanced is capable in law of amounting to a good reason for carrying a bladed article in public. If it is capable, the jury decides whether the defence is made out on the evidence.

Because the statutory language is general and ordinary, a judge should withdraw the defence only in a clear case. The asserted good reason must relate to having the article in a public place at the relevant time. Evidence of the intended time and place of use will often be necessary. A bare assertion of a future purpose, without that connection, cannot establish the defence.

The appellant was convicted at Bournemouth Crown Court, on the Recorder’s direction, of possessing a bladed article in a public place contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He received a conditional discharge for 12 months.

When stopped and searched, he had a folded lock knife in his pocket. He said that he carried it to self-harm and relied on that explanation as a good reason under section 139(4). The Recorder withdrew that defence from the jury and directed a conviction. The appellant appealed against conviction, contending that whether there was a good reason was exclusively a question for the jury.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was right to withdraw the section 139(4) defence and direct a conviction, although the Court relied on the insufficiency of the evidence rather than principally on the Recorder’s view that self-harm could never amount to a good reason.

2. The question whether an explanation is capable in law of being a good reason is for the judge. If it is capable, whether it was in fact a good reason in all the circumstances is for the jury. Some explanations, such as a wish to commit crime or bare forgetfulness, cannot meet the statutory threshold.

3. The ordinary and general wording of section 139(4) requires judicial restraint. A judge should be slow to rule that an explanation cannot amount to a good reason and should withdraw the defence only in a clear case. The judge must not add a personal gloss to the statutory language.

4. The reason must justify having the article in a public place at the relevant time, not merely possessing it for some purpose at another time or place. Evidence about the intended time and place of use will often be important.

5. The Court did not decide in the abstract whether self-harm could ever be a good reason. On the evidence, the appellant had not identified when or where he intended to use the knife. Even an assertion of daily self-harm could not justify carrying it in public on one evening because of a possible wish to self-harm the following day. The appellant therefore failed to discharge the burden of establishing the statutory defence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against conviction dismissed: [2003] EWCA Crim 1989.
• Crown Court at Bournemouth: the Recorder withdrew the asserted section 139(4) defence from the jury, directed a conviction, and imposed a 12-month conditional discharge.