In court
| Published date | 01 March 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550508099717 |
| Date | 01 March 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Nigel Stone, Senior Lecturer in Criminology in the School of Social Work and
Psychosocial Sciences, University of East Anglia, reviews recent appeal judgements
and other judicial developments that inform sentencing and early release.
General sentencing issues
Offensive weapons: ‘The message is stark’
In light of a perceived increase in the carrying of knives and other weapons the
Court of Appeal has recently considered a number of unrelated appeals together
to provide general guidance to sentencers in respect of possession of a knife or
an offensive weapon without reasonable excuse. In the Court’s view this ‘is a crime
which is being committed far too often by far too many people’, has reached
‘epidemic proportions’ and ‘should be treated with the seriousness it deserves’.
As Lord Justice Judge, the incoming Lord Chief Justice, expressed it:
Every weapon carried about the streets, even if concealed from sight, even if not
likely to be or intended to be used, and even if not used represents a threat to
public safety and public order. That is because even if concealed, even if carried
only for bravado, or from some misguided sense that its use in possible
self-defence might arise, it takes but a moment of irritation, drunkenness, anger,
perceived insult or something utterly trivial, like a look, for the weapon to be
produced. Then we have mayhem and offences of the greatest possible
seriousness follow . . . the courts will do what they can to help reduce, and, so far
as practicable, eradicate it. In our view, it is important for public confidence in the
criminal justice system that the man or woman caught in possession of a knife or
offensive weapon without reasonable excuse should normally be brought before
the courts and prosecuted. . . . For the time being, whatever other considerations
may arise in the individual case, sentencing courts must have in the forefront of
their thinking that the sentences for this type of offence should focus on the
reduction of crime, including its reduction by deterrence, and the protection of the
public. Even if the offender does no more than carry the weapon, even when the
weapon is not used to threaten or cause fear, when considering the seriousness of
the offence courts should bear in mind the harm which the weapon might
foreseeably have caused.
86
Probation Journal
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2009 NAPO Vol 56(1): 86–102
DOI: 10.1177/0264550508099717
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
In court
87
In court
Over the past five years the principal guideline judgement issued by the Court of
Appeal in respect of weapon possession has been that of Poulton and Celaire
(2003). Given that ‘conditions now are much more grave’ the Court took the
opportunity to emphasize that that guidance remained current but should be
applied ‘with the current grave situation . . . clearly in mind’. The Court has further
recommended ‘that any relevant guidance from the Sentencing Guidelines Council
to magistrates should normally be applied at the most severe end of the appro-
priate range of sentences’.
As illustration of these points the Appeal Court then proceeded to deal with the
individual appeals before it, including:
●When stopped in the street by police in the early hours of the morning a
man aged 50 with a substantial criminal record (including a rather dated
conviction for manslaughter by stabbing) and wearing an army camouflage
jacket, combat trousers and black army style boots, was found in possession
of a flick knife and a kitchen knife with a six inch blade. The pre-sentence
report described his chaotic lifestyle, homelessness and relationship
difficulties and assessed him to evidence poor consequential thinking. His
awareness of the consequences of carrying knives was said to be limited,
although he indicated that he would use a weapon if he felt the need to
protect himself. He accepted that he was ‘an angry person’, that he had
used verbal aggression to intimidate and that he had also physically
assaulted. He was considered to represent a high risk of re-offending with
a medium risk of harm to the public. He was not motivated to comply with
the probation service and made it clear that if a community order were in
contemplation he would not comply with it. Dismissing his appeal against
16 months imprisonment following guilty plea, brought on the basis that
this offending episode had lacked any aggravating features or any actual
violence, the Appeal Court noted that he was a man of unstable
temperament and with a serious criminal record and considered that this
was precisely the kind of case that merited a robust sentencing response
along the lines it had outlined.
●Police officers who had intervened prior to an anticipated night-time street
confrontation had found a kitchen knife hidden in the sock of one of those
present, a man aged 34 with a limited prior record (comprising two old
convictions of an apparently unrelated nature). The confrontation had been
intended as a ‘meeting’ to ‘resolve’ tensions between the man’s brother
and the estranged husband of a woman with whom that brother had been
pursuing a relationship. The man had accompanied his brother and two
other men to offer ‘support’. One of those men was armed with a metal
pole and the husband with a knife. When interviewed the man said that he
had been in possession of a kitchen knife for only a few minutes and had
brought it ‘for protection’. The pre-sentence report (PSR) referred to his
intellectual impairment and assessed him to pose a low risk to the public,
proposing a conditional discharge. On his appeal against four months
imprisonment, he argued that this had been manifestly excessive and that
To continue reading
Request your trial