Hilton, R (On the Application of) v Canterbury Crown Court

When a defendant relies on the defence in section 139(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court must distinguish between possession of the article and the separate question whether the defendant had good reason or lawful authority for having it in a public place. The court must make clear, unambiguous findings on the defence. An explanation that an article was taken from another person to prevent potential danger, together with lack of a realistic opportunity to dispose of it, may be capable of establishing good reason. A conviction or appeal decision should be quashed where the reasoning fails to show that the statutory defence was properly considered.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Canterbury Crown Court’s refusal to state a case after dismissing his appeal against conviction. He had been convicted of possessing a bladed article in a public place, contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He accepted possession but relied on section 139(4), saying that he had taken the knife from a friend to prevent possible harm and had intended to dispose of it.

The central issue was whether the Crown Court had properly considered and determined that statutory defence, rather than addressing only whether the claimant knowingly possessed the knife.

1. The decision was quashed and the matter remitted. The Crown Court’s dismissal of the claimant’s conviction appeal was quashed. The matter was to be reheard before a different court.
2. Section 139(4) required the court to determine whether the claimant had good reason or lawful authority for having the knife with him in a public place. That issue was distinct from whether the knife was in his possession.
3. The Crown Court’s findings were ambiguous. They rejected the claimant’s evidence that he had forgotten the knife, but did not make clear whether they rejected his explanation of how he acquired it or whether they had considered the continuing question of whether he had an opportunity, and ought, to dispose of it.
4. The explanation that the claimant took the knife from a friend to prevent potentially dangerous conduct, and lacked a realistic or reasonable opportunity to dispose of it, was capable, if accepted, of constituting good reason. The Crown Court was required to address that defence expressly and make clear findings.
5. The refusal to state a case was unjustified. The appeal was not frivolous. No order for costs was made because the defendant was unrepresented.

• Canterbury Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant on 18 January 2008 of possessing a bladed article contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
• Canterbury Crown Court: dismissed the appeal against conviction after a rehearing and subsequently refused to state a case.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the Crown Court’s decision and remitted the matter for rehearing before a different court.