Garry v Crown Prosecution Service

Possession of a weapon offensive per se does not become a reasonable excuse merely because the weapon is carried or used for work. The fact-finding tribunal must assess the whole of the circumstances, including the weapon’s character, the purpose for which it was carried, the temporal connection between possession and that purpose, where it was found, and whether another implement would suffice. The defendant bears the burden of proving reasonable excuse under the Crime Prevention Act 1953. On a case stated, the Administrative Court should not interfere with the tribunal’s evaluative conclusion unless it is irrational or perverse. The absence of convictions for violence is irrelevant where the weapon is offensive per se and the issue is reasonable excuse for possession.

The appellant was convicted of possessing a butterfly knife in a public place, contrary to section 1(1) of the Crime Prevention Act 1953. He accepted that the knife was offensive per se, but argued that his work as a plumber, electrician and gas engineer supplied a reasonable excuse. The Crown Court dismissed his appeal, finding that work use was not determinative and that the absence of convictions for violence was irrelevant.

The appellant appealed by case stated. The questions concerned the distinction between a butterfly knife and a Stanley knife, whether work use necessarily constituted reasonable excuse, the relevance of alternative tools and the objective nature of the test, together with the relevance of his previous convictions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Crown Court had correctly treated the butterfly knife as offensive per se and had not decided that such a weapon could never be used as a tool.
2. Under section 1(1) of the Crime Prevention Act 1953, the defendant bears the burden of proving reasonable excuse. Whether that burden is discharged is fact-sensitive and lies within the fact-finding tribunal’s wide discretion: R v G [2009] UKHL 13.
3. Proof that an offensive weapon was carried for work is evidence relevant to reasonable excuse, but is not conclusive. The tribunal may consider whether the work purpose required that particular weapon, whether another implement would suffice, the weapon’s type and location, temporal proximity to the asserted purpose, and whether it had been forgotten in a public place. A butterfly knife carries a particularly heavy evidential burden: DPP v Patterson [2004] EWHC 2744 (Admin); DPP v Gregson (1992) 96 Cr App R 240.
4. The governing approach is whether, in the particular circumstances, a reasonable person would regard it as a proper occasion for carrying the weapon: Bryan v Mott [1975] 62 Cr App R 71. The Crown Court was entitled to reject the asserted reasonable excuse on the evidence, including the absence of a sufficient temporal connection and the knife’s location in the car glove compartment.
5. On a case stated appeal, the court interferes with the exercise of judgment only where it is Wednesbury irrational or perverse: H v DPP [2007 EWHC 2192 (Admin). The Crown Court’s ruling met neither threshold.
6. The absence of convictions for violence was irrelevant. The knife was offensive per se, so the issue was reasonable excuse rather than purpose or intention. The appellant was not of good character in any event, and no good-character direction was required: R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the Crown Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s conviction appeal.