Harriot v Director of Public Prosecutions

For Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 139, a place is not public merely because members of the public can enter it without a physical or legal obstruction. Where land appears private, the prosecution must provide evidence that the general public in fact has access, whether by permission or otherwise. Lawful visitors with implied permission to approach premises do not amount to the public generally. The statutory expression has a consistent meaning across offences and leaves the tribunal of fact a limited margin of judgment, bounded by law.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from a conviction at Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court for possessing bladed articles in a public place, contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The appellant had been found carrying knives in the open area between a bail hostel and the road. The District Judge held that the area was a place to which the public had access because entry was unimpeded and there were no signs restricting access. The central issue was whether that finding was legally open on the facts found.

1. Appeal allowed and case remitted with a direction to acquit. The open area between the hostel and the road was, on its face, part of private premises. There was no evidence that public access was invited or tolerated.
2. Section 139(7) defines public place inclusively as a place to which, at the material time, the public have or are permitted access. The definition is illustrative rather than exhaustive. A tribunal of fact has a margin of judgment, but the conclusion is tightly bounded by law.
3. Unimpeded physical access, and the absence of notices or other legal restrictions, are insufficient to convert private land into a public place. A private garden or front area remains private unless evidence shows that members of the public actually use it in their capacity as members of the public.
4. The relevant question does not change according to whether the alleged offence concerns driving, disorderly conduct or possession of a bladed article. A different meaning would undermine legal certainty. Lawful visitors, including residents, staff and persons with lawful business who have implied permission to approach the door, are not thereby the general public.
5. The evidence in Knox v Anderton was materially different because the land had been acquiesced in as a public thoroughfare. The present case lacked comparable evidence. The court also relied on the approach in R v Roberts (1978), and treated the later decision in R v Roberts (2003) as confirming that the concept of a public place should not be extended by reference to the ease with which an attack could have been made.
6. Costs were awarded out of central funds, to be assessed if not agreed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated allowed against the conviction at Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court on 23 August 2004; the case was remitted with a direction to acquit. Costs were awarded out of central funds.