Williams, R. v

Immediate custody for possession of a bladed article requires an individual assessment of seriousness. The general prevalence of knife-carrying does not itself make every offence custodial.

In assessing sentence, the court must disregard suspicion concerning other conduct for which the offender has not been convicted. A lock knife with a legitimate work purpose, kept in a pocket and not used to threaten anyone, together with good character and the absence of aggravating features, may place the offence below the custody threshold.

The appellant, aged 18 at the time, was convicted at Wood Green Crown Court of possessing a lock knife contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The knife had a blade of two and a half inches and was found in his trouser pocket after he was stopped by police.

He said that he used it in his gardening work and had forgotten to leave it in his workplace locker. The jury rejected his account that he was unaware of its presence. He had no previous convictions, and a pre-sentence report assessed him as presenting a low risk of reoffending.

The Crown Court imposed six weeks’ detention in a young offender institution. With leave, he appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether this offence crossed the custody threshold.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court quashed the six-week sentence of detention in a young offender institution and substituted a conditional discharge for 12 months.
2. A sentencing court must sentence an offender only for the offence of conviction. The appellant had been encountered in suspicious circumstances involving a van, but no further action had been taken in relation to that matter. It could not properly aggravate sentence for possession of the knife.
3. Possession of bladed articles was properly recognised as a serious problem in London and other major cities. It would often justify custody. However, the custody threshold depends on the particular offence and offender; that wider problem did not make immediate custody inevitable.
4. This knife had a legitimate purpose in the appellant’s gardening work. It remained in his pocket and was not used to threaten anyone. The appellant was a young man of good character, with no previous convictions, and there were no aggravating features of the offence. Those matters meant that the offence did not cross the custody threshold.
5. In selecting the substitute sentence, the court took account of the 13 days already served in custody. The conditional discharge ran for 12 months from the date of the original sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—Allowed the sentence appeal, quashed the custodial sentence and substituted a 12-month conditional discharge: [2006] EWCA Crim 2530.
• Crown Court at Wood Green—Convicted the appellant on 4 September 2006 and, on 22 September 2006, sentenced him to six weeks’ detention in a young offender institution.