The defendant was charged with having in his possession a locked blade. His defence was that he had good reason, relying upon the explanation given at the police station. The judge withdrew the defence from the jury. He appealed, saying the judge should have left the jury to decide.
Held: The words ‘good reason’ were words are ordinary words, but it is for the judge to decide whether the explanation advanced was capable of being a good reason. An explanation may not be a reason. A judge should be slow to take from the jury the interpretation of ordinary words, and should do so only in a clear cut case. This was one such.
Keene LJ, Simon J, Sir Richard Tucker
Times 14-Jul-2003, Gazette 04-Sep-2003, [2003] EWCA Crim 1989, [2004] 1 Cr App R 151
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 139(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Wang, Regina v HL 10-Feb-2005
The appellant was waiting for a train when his bag was stolen. After a search, the thief tried to deter the appellant from calling the police by suggesting that the bag contained items the appellant should not be carrying. From the bag the appellant . .
Cited – Wang, Regina v HL 10-Feb-2005
The appellant was waiting for a train when his bag was stolen. After a search, the thief tried to deter the appellant from calling the police by suggesting that the bag contained items the appellant should not be carrying. From the bag the appellant . .
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: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.184551