N v Director of Public Prosecutions

Whether possession of an offensive weapon amounts to a reasonable excuse because of anticipated attack is an objective question for the fact-finder. The defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, both the belief in imminent danger and the reasonableness of that belief. The defendant’s honestly held belief is relevant, but does not determine the issue. The court must assess all the circumstances, including the imminence, likelihood, timing and location of the threatened attack. The self-defence approach does not govern reasonable excuse under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.

The appellant appealed against his conviction in the Youth Court at Croydon Magistrates’ Court for possessing a metal bar as an offensive weapon, contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. After leaving a party and encountering a car containing youths, he feared an attack, picked up the bar and was stopped by police about five minutes later.

The District Judge accepted that he might have believed himself at risk, but found that the belief was not reasonable in the circumstances and that the danger had passed. The central issues were whether the appellant remained in anticipation of an imminent attack and whether that question depended solely on his subjective belief.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had not erred in concluding that the appellant lacked a reasonable excuse for possessing the metal bar.
2. Under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, each case depends on its own facts. The fact-finder must assess the circumstances prevailing when the weapon was carried, including how imminent, soon, likely and serious the anticipated attack was, together with temporal and geographical factors.
3. Evans v Hughes [1972] 1 WLR 1452 did not prescribe a fixed period after which a threat ceased to be imminent. It supported the requirement of an imminent particular threat and did not justify permanent carriage of a weapon because of a continuing danger.
4. The defendant’s belief that an attack was imminent is relevant, but reasonableness is assessed objectively. The defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities both the belief and its reasonableness. An honestly held belief alone is insufficient.
5. The self-defence test could not be imported into the statutory defence. The proposed three-stage test was rejected.
6. R v McAuley [2009] EWCA Crim 2130 confirmed that questions of imminence, timing, likelihood and seriousness remain for the fact-finding tribunal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal dismissed.
• Youth Court at Croydon Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Arbuthnot convicted the appellant on 6 July 2010.