The appellant had been convicted of having a pointed article with him in a public place. He said that the car he was driving had needed an instrument to operate the lock. At first he had used a knife, but then used scissors, losing the knife in the car.
Held: The jury must be required to deal first with possession. The words of the act must be given their ordinary meaning. Forgetfulness alone was not a good reason, but the circumstances might make it such. Forgetfulness can be part of a good reason.
Kennedy LJ doubted the reasoning in Gregson, saying: ‘We have set out . . to demonstrate the reasoning, which we do not find entirely persuasive. If the defendant had a good reason for having the knife on him six days earlier, when did that good reason cease? Did it cease as soon as he returned home from work? What if he called at a public house on the way? What was it about the new statutory wording which prevented the tribunal of fact from considering not only the alleged forgetfulness but also the reason given for the knife being where it was, and the time involved, when deciding whether or not the defendant had established the statutory defence? If Gregson was rightly decided, it would seem to follow that a parent who, having bought a kitchen knife, put it in the glove compartment of a car out of reach of a child, and then forgot to retrieve it when he arrived home would be committing an offence next time he drove the vehicle on a public road. That does not seem to us to be what Parliament intended.’ and ‘Accordingly in our judgment where a defendant does seek to rely on section 139(4) the fact finding tribunal should be left free to consider whether in the circumstances the defendant has shown that he had a good reason for having the article with him in a public place. If forgetfulness is relied upon it does need to be said that alone it cannot constitute a good reason, but otherwise no legal direction is required.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Hunt And Mr Justice Pitchers
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Crim 1543, Times 30-May-2003, [2004] 1 Cr App R 3, (2003) 167 JP 313, [2003] Crim LR 730
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1988 139(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Manning CACD 22-Oct-1997
The defendant had been in possession of a knife which he said that he had used to fix his car radiator and then put in his pocket. As to the statutory defence the trial judge had directed the jury that ‘just forgetfulness on its own was no reason.’ . .
Cited – Regina v Martindale CACD 1986
Possession does not depend upon the alleged possessor’s powers of memory. Nor does possession come and go as memory revives or fails. ‘In the judgment of this court [that the argument that lack of memory or knowledge negatives possession is . .
Cited – Cugullere, Regina v 1961
The defendant had been driving a motor-van when he was stopped by the police. In the back of the van there were found three pickaxe handles bound with adhesive tape. His defence was that he did not know that the implements were in the back of his . .
Cited – Buswell, Regina v CACD 1972
The defendant was accused of possession of drugs. The drugs in question had been medically prescribed by the defendant’s doctor. After he had taken them home he genuinely thought that they had been accidentally destroyed by his mother when washing . .
Cited – Brutus v Cozens HL 19-Jul-1972
The House was asked whether the conduct of the defendant at a tennis match at Wimbledon amounted to using ‘insulting words or behaviour’ whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned contrary to section 5. He went onto court 2, blew a . .
Doubted – Director of Public Prosecutions v Gregson QBD 23-Sep-1992
A knife fell from the defendant’s jeans during the course of a police search. He claimed to have forgotten about it.
Held: It is important to concentrate on the time in respect of which the defendant is charged. Six days earlier he had the . .
Cited – Regina v Glidewell CACD 4-May-1999
Forgetfulness might be relevant as a defence on a charge of possessing an offensive weapon. A taxi driver discovered weapons left by a passenger, but forgot having placed them in a glove compartment.
Held: The Appeal was allowed.
Cited – McCalla, Regina v CACD 1988
A cosh had been found in the glove compartment of the appellant’s car. He said he had picked it up a month earlier, had put it away and had forgotten about it.
Held: The court reviewed the authorities on what constituted possession. Once . .
Cited – Regina v Hargreaves CACD 30-Jul-1999
A cyclist stopped by the police had a knife in an inside pocket. He claimed to have taken it from home and then forgotten about it. He was advised that for the purposes of the section neither forgetfulness nor the fact that he was transporting the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Chahal v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 24-Feb-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for possession of a bladed article. He had used the knife at work and forgotten to leave it at work and had it in his pocket by accident.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant had been accepted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182598
