Ellis, R. v

Where bad-character evidence is admitted to show a propensity for untruthfulness or offending, the jury should be warned that past lies or convictions do not establish that the defendant lied or committed the offence on the present occasion. The evidence may be considered, but its weight is for the jury.

For section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, a person carrying an offensive weapon in a car while on a public highway possesses it in a public place. The absence of public access to the car is immaterial.

The appellant was convicted at Lewes Crown Court of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Police stopped him while he was driving on a public highway and found an extendable police baton in the car, together with police-style items.

He said that he was taking the items for disposal. The Crown relied on his earlier false explanation and on admitted bad-character evidence concerning previous dishonesty. On appeal, he challenged the jury direction on that evidence and sought leave to argue that a car on the highway was not a public place.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge should have warned the jury that previous dishonesty did not mean that the appellant had necessarily lied on this occasion. The same warning should have been given against treating his previous offending as proof that he committed the present offence. This followed the direction identified in Hanson [2005] 2 Cr.App.R 21.

2. The omissions did not render the conviction unsafe. The appellant had first given a false explanation. His later account was inherently incredible in light of the locations of the baton, handcuffs and false warrant card, and the other police clothing found at his home. The case against him was overwhelming.

3. The court rejected the proposed construction of section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. The relevant question was where the appellant was while possessing the baton. He was on a public highway. Driving a car did not alter that fact, just as carrying the weapon in a suitcase or pocket would not make possession private.

4. R v Kane [1965] 1 All.ER 705 concerned whether premises were open to the public and did not govern possession in a vehicle on a highway. Leave to advance the further ground was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed. Leave to advance the further ground concerning a public place was refused.
• Lewes Crown Court: On 13 May 2009, the appellant was convicted of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.