Chahal v Director of Public Prosecutions

For the statutory defence of having a bladed article for a good reason, the fact-finding tribunal must consider all the circumstances. Forgetfulness alone cannot constitute a good reason, but forgetfulness combined with the original lawful reason for possessing the article may suffice. The tribunal should consider why the article was retained, the time elapsed, and whether there was any intervening purpose. The casual nature of the defendant’s employment is not, by itself, relevant to whether the defence is established. Where the article was used at work, was retained for that purpose, and was later forgotten in the defendant’s pocket for a short period, the defence may be made out.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from the conviction of Harjinder Singh Chahal by the Brentford Youth Court on 7 April 2009 for possessing a bladed article in a public place, contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The appellant had used a lock knife while undertaking occasional construction work for his uncle, placed it in his jacket pocket, and later forgot that it remained there.

The central issue was whether the magistrates had erred in law by treating the casual nature of the work and the appellant’s forgetfulness as insufficient to establish the statutory defence of good reason.

1. Appeal allowed. The Divisional Court answered the question posed by the justices in the affirmative and quashed the conviction.
2. Section 139(4) requires a broad factual assessment. The fact-finding tribunal must decide whether, in all the circumstances, the defendant has proved a good reason for having the article in a public place. No additional legal direction is required, save that forgetfulness alone cannot constitute a good reason.
3. Forgetfulness may be combined with the reason why the article came to be in the defendant’s possession. The relevant considerations include the original purpose, the time elapsed, and whether the article was retained for any intervening purpose. The approach in Jolie was adopted and applied.
4. On the facts found, the appellant had used the knife at work, placed it in his pocket in case it was needed again, and shortly afterwards forgot that it was there. The knife had not been retained for any other purpose. The casual nature of the appellant’s work did not deprive him of a good reason.
5. The justices had been misled into treating casual employment as determinative, rather than asking whether the appellant genuinely had a good reason and had genuinely forgotten about the knife. Lord Justice Laws agreed with McCombe J’s reasons and the appeal was allowed unanimously.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated allowed; the question of law was answered in the affirmative and the conviction was quashed.
• Brentford Youth Court: convicted the appellant on 7 April 2009 of possessing a bladed article in a public place.