Chahal v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LAWS,MR JUSTICE McCOMBE |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 439 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/14643/2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 24 February 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 439 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Before: Lord Justice Laws
Mr Justice Mccombe
CO/14643/2009
Mr D Thomas (instructed by Vickers and Company) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr S Mather (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
(As approved)
: I will ask McCombe J to give the first judgment.
: This is an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the Brentford Youth Court made on 7 April 2009 to convict the appellant, Harjinder Singh Chahal, of possession of a bladed article, contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This section, so far as material, provides as follows:
“(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, any person who has an article to which this section applies with him in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.
…
(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—
(a) for use at work …”
The remaining parts of this section are not material.
There is an application before the court for extension of time in which to bring the appeal. We have read the written arguments and heard submissions from counsel on the merits and grant any extension sought. The delay does not in fact appear to have been entirely, if at all, of the appellant's own making.
The facts found by the Justices appearing from their case stated were broadly as follows: two police officers on mobile patrol had seen a silver BMW motor vehicle near the bus station on London Road in Hounslow. The appellant was one of the two occupants of the vehicle. One officer searched the appellant and found a lock knife inside his jacket. The appellant was asked for an explanation and said it was for use at work. On enquiry the officer found that the appellant appeared to be unemployed. The appellant was charged.
The appellant's evidence appearing from paragraph 7 of the stated case was this:
“… he occasionally worked for his uncle in construction business and used the knife to cut the straps off the boxes. He said he last worked on the Monday and he found the knife in the shop and used it some twenty minutes to remove the straps of the boxes. He then placed the knife in his jacket pocket. He explained that he worked in cold temperatures and wore his jacket. His uncle dropped him home and upon entering his home he placed his jacket straight in his wardrobe. He also gave evidence that following this he remained at home for some two days. Subsequently on Tuesday his cousins arrived from Birmingham and they made plans to meet up from 7 to 8pm. When they arrived to collect him from home the appellant hurriedly grabbed his jacket and left to watch a film at the Feltham cinema. He stated that whilst watching the film he realised the knife was in his pocket and immediately told his cousin and made plans with his cousin to return home and drop the knife. However en route the appellant and his cousin decide to pick up [another] cousin.”
In cross-examination the appellant told the court that he had forgotten to place the knife back in the shop after using it to cut straps and open boxes.
The uncle also gave evidence: the employer concerned. He gave details of his business involvement in import and export construction materials and that he was also involved in the importation of rice from India. He said that the appellant, his nephew, worked occasionally for him, would assist him to open large rice containers shipped from abroad, and that the premises were old factory premises in a run down state. There were several tools and knives left on the premises during the factory operation. In cross-examination he confirmed that the appellant was working for him during the Christmas period: 21, 22 and 23 December, and also between 25 and 31 December 2008, the latter date being the one on which the alleged offence occurred. He was shown the knife in court and gave evidence that he could not be sure that that was the knife, although he had instructed the appellant to find a knife to cut straps off the boxes.
It was submitted on the appellant's behalf that he had had good reason for having the article with him in a public place for use at work. The court was referred to section 139 of the Act and, as appears from the case, they were also referred to several of the authorities material in this area of the law: R v Manning [1998] Crim L.R. 198, Jolie [2003] 167 JP 313, Bown [2004] 1 Cr App R 151 and DPP v Gregson [1992] 96 Cr App R 240.
The court retired to consider its decision after hearing that submission and returned to give the following reasons for its conclusion, which were these:
“On 31st December 2008 at London Road, Harjinder had with him in his possession a lock knife, in a public place. The reasons put forward by the defence are raised as a defence in law, that the defendant possessed the article for reasons for use at work.
We note certain factors raised including that Harjinder was in casual work on the day for his uncle, and used the lock knife, and subsequently had forgotten that he placed the knife in his jacket.
We note that the law states that forgetfulness in itself is not a ‘good reason’ in defence, but that other factors must also be considered in deciding whether the accused has proved its defence of ‘good reason’ on the balance of probabilities.
We note that you said you used the knife at work but we further view this as ‘casual’ based work with your uncle and...
To continue reading
Request your trial