DPP v Gregson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 July 1992 |
| Date | 21 July 1992 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Before Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Popplewell
Crime - possession of knife - forgetfulness no defence
A defendant could not rely on forgetfulness as constituting the defence of good reason to having an article with a blade or sharp point in a public place contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held, allowing a prosecution appeal by way of case stated against the decision of Thames Justices on October 14, 1991 to dismiss an information against Daniel Michael Gregson for an offence contrary to section 139 of the 1988 Act of having an article with a blade or sharp point in a public place without good reason or lawful authority.
Mr John McGuinness for the DPP; the respondent did not appear and was not represented.
LORD JUSTICE McCOWAN said that the justices had found that the respondent used the knife for his work, he had last worked six days prior to his arrest and he had forgotten to remove the knife. The justices were of the opinion that he had had a good reason for having the knife with him.
It was important to concentrate on the time when the respondent had been charged. No doubt he had had the knife with him six days earlier for a good reason, his work, but had he had it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Clancy
...the accused's perception of the likelihood of an attack was a relevant matter, but the tenor of the judgment suggests that it was. 12 DPP v Gregson (1992) 96 Cr. App. Rep. 240 was a case under the 1988 Act. The respondent, who was found in possession of a knife, said that he habitually us......
-
Bruce Smith V. Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen
...be recognised that the question relates, temporally, to the point at which the person is arrested in the public place (DPP v Gregson (1993) 96Cr App R 240; McGuire v Higson at p.891). The question in this case, therefore, was whether, in the light of the whole facts and circumstances, the a......
-
R v Leroy Jolie
...or suggest that the word 'insulting' should be given any other than its ordinary natural meaning." 15 However, in DPP v Gregson [1993] 96 Cr App R 240, an appeal to the Divisional Court by way of case stated, a knife fell from the defendant's jeans during the course of a police search. McCo......
-
Jolleh Garry v Crown Prosecution Service
...... . 22 The court, should it reject temporal proximity, will then consider whether he might have forgotten to move it out of the public place: DPP v Gregson (1992) 96 Cr App R 240. . 23 Those consequential questions underline that proof that the weapon was for use at work is not dispositive of reasonable excuse. If it were, neither would be posed. . 24 Under the 1953 Act, the questions, applied to these facts, are whether the ......
-
Duress by indirect threats R v Brandford [2016] EWCA Crim 1794, [2017] 4 WLR 17, Court of Appeal
...of the knife for what could be construed as fairly innocent reasons (e.g. using a knife to cuttiles for work (DPP vGregson [1993] 96 Cr. App. R. 240) or using a bladed article to work on a car in thestreet (RvManning [1997] Lexis Citation 5150)). Although the earlier cases appeared to invol......
-
‘Possession is only ninth tenths of the law’. What constitutes the final ingredient to ‘have’ a blade ‘with him’ in a public place? R v Henderson [2016] EWCA Crim 965
...of the knife for what could be construed as fairly innocent reasons (e.g. using a knife to cuttiles for work (DPP vGregson [1993] 96 Cr. App. R. 240) or using a bladed article to work on a car in thestreet (RvManning [1997] Lexis Citation 5150)). Although the earlier cases appeared to invol......