R v R

A terminating ruling may be made only where there is no evidence on which a reasonable jury could draw the relevant inference. Where evidence could support an inference that an article was made or adapted for use as a weapon, competing inferences about an innocent or protective purpose are for the jury.

In a prosecution under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, the character and weight of gloves, together with evidence of how they were marketed, could permit a jury to infer that they were made for use as a weapon. A fresh trial may be ordered under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where the interests of justice require it.

The prosecution applied for leave to appeal a terminating ruling made at Harrow Crown Court on 30 August 2007. The respondent had been charged with possessing an offensive weapon, namely a pair of sand gloves, contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.

At the close of the prosecution evidence, the Recorder stopped the case of his own motion because he considered that the gloves could not in law be an offensive weapon. The Crown had not put its case on an intention by the respondent to use the gloves to cause injury. The issue was whether the evidence could enable a jury to find that the gloves had been made, or adapted, for use as a weapon.

1. Appeal allowed. The Recorder’s terminating ruling was wrong in law. The court granted the prosecution leave to appeal under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. The Crown’s case had to be assessed as it was put while the evidence was called. Although Crown counsel raised a possible case based on an intention to use the gloves to cause injury at the close of the evidence, that was not the case previously advanced. The court therefore left that potential basis aside.
3. The issue was whether the evidence could establish that the gloves were made or adapted for use as a weapon within the relevant statutory scheme. The gloves were heavy leather gloves with padding over the knuckles said to contain sand. The jury had also heard evidence that similar gloves were advertised online as self-defence gloves with powdered lead in a knuckle pouch.
4. That material could enable a reasonable jury to infer that the gloves had been made for use as a weapon. The alternative inference, that they were ordinary or protective gloves, was a matter for the jury. A judge could stop the case only if there were no evidence on which a reasonable jury could draw the relevant inference.
5. The jury had been discharged without returning a verdict. The court concluded that a fresh trial for the original offence was in the interests of justice and ordered one under section 61(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The prosecution’s appeal against the terminating ruling was allowed, and a fresh trial was ordered.
• Harrow Crown Court: On 30 August 2007, the Recorder stopped the prosecution case and discharged the jury without a verdict after concluding that the gloves could not in law be an offensive weapon.