Bayliss, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

For the purposes of Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 139, a person who puts a bladed article in his own clothing continues to have it with him in a public place even if he later forgets its presence. Forgetfulness does not negate the required possession or having. However, forgetfulness may be relevant to whether the person has a good reason for carrying the article. Forgetfulness alone is insufficient, particularly where the person himself introduced the article into his clothing. The question of good reason is fact-sensitive and must be assessed by the tribunal of fact in light of all the circumstances.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by Bury St Edmunds Magistrates’ Court on 26 April 2002 for possessing a bladed article in a public place contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He had used a lock knife for legitimate work, placed it in his belt, forgot it was there, and later visited a Tesco superstore. The information was amended to allege possession in a public place, and the amendment ground was abandoned.

The issues were whether the claimant knowingly had the knife with him in a public place and whether he had established a good reason under section 139(4).

1. The appeal was dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to convict under section 139(1) and to find that the claimant had no good reason under section 139(4).

2. The phrase requiring an article to be had with a person in a public place requires knowledge that the person has the article, but forgetfulness after the person has put the article in his own clothing does not remove that knowledge or interrupt the continuing state of having it. R v Cugullere was distinguishable because the weapon there had been placed in the vehicle without the defendant’s knowledge. The reasoning in McCalla was binding and conclusive against the claimant’s argument.

3. Forgetfulness may be relevant to the statutory defence of good reason. It is not, however, by itself a good reason where the defendant placed a work knife in his own clothing and later forgot it. The court did not interpret Gregson or Hargreaves as establishing that forgetfulness could never be relevant. Circumstances such as illness or medication might make it relevant, but the tribunal must consider the whole factual situation.

4. The magistrates had considered the legitimate work use, the short interval before the visit to Tesco, and the claimant’s forgetfulness. Their conclusion that those matters did not amount to good reason was open to them on the facts, and there was no basis for appellate interference.

• Bury St Edmunds Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant on 26 April 2002 of possessing a bladed article in a public place contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and upheld the findings under sections 139(1) and 139(4).