Lister v Lees
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1994 |
| Neutral Citation | 1993 SCCR 548 |
| Date | 25 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No 33 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
LJ-C Ross, Lords Morison, Sutherland
Statutory offence—Possession of offensive weapon—Carrying knife in public place—Pannel having spike in public place after using it to open glue tin but forgetting to get rid of it—Whether "good reason" for possession of it at time of arrest—Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 (cap. 13), sec. 1(4)1
Words and phrases—Statutory interpretation—"Good reason"—Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 (cap. 13), sec. 1(4)1
The pannel was tried on a summary complaint with carrying a spike in a public place contrary to sec. 1(1) of the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993. He was found inside a railway carriage and had been inhaling glue. On being arrested, he was searched and found to be in possession of the spike. In explanation, he stated that he had found it in the railway station and had used it to open the tin of glue but had forgotten to discard it. He maintained that that constituted the defence of "good reason" in terms of sec. 1(4). The sheriff held, however, that that reason did not constitute a proper and necessary exception to the general prohibition as "good reason" was not to be equiparated with "any" or an "innocent" reason; and, in any event, that reason was not a valid one at the time of the pannel's arrest. The pannel was accordingly convicted and appealed to the High Court.
Held that the question was whether at the time of his arrest in the public place the pannel had good reason for having the spike with him, and at that time that was not a good reason; and appealrefused.
D.P.P. v. GregsonUNK (1993) 96 Cr. App. R. 240applied.
Opinion that in determining what constituted "good reason" the court was not to make a moral judgment. Each case had to be judged on its own particular facts and circumstances, and in determining that issue, the court should have regard to the general purpose of the legislation so that where the legislation contained a general prohibition, the court had to determine whether the reason advanced appeared to constitute a justifiable exception to the general prohibition contained in the legislation.
Dictum of Lord Justice-Clerk Grant in Grieve v. MacLeodSC1967 J.C. 32 at p. 36 approved.
Steven Norman Lister was charged in the sheriffdom of Lothian and Borders at Edinburgh on a summary complaint at the instance of Robert Ferguson Lees, procurator fiscal there, the libel of which set forth, inter alia, that: "[O]n 11th November 1993 within Waverley station, Edinburgh, being a public place you did without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, have with you an offensive weapon, namely a metal spike: contrary to the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, sec. 1 (1); or alternatively date and place above libelled being a public place you did have with you an article namely a metal spike to which sec. 1 of the Act aftermentioned applies: contrary to the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993, sec. 1(1)".
The pannel pled not guilty and came to trial before the temporary sheriff (L. J. Robb). After trial, the sheriff convicted the pannel. The pannel thereafter appealed to the High Court of Justiciary.
The sheriff posed three questions for their Lordships' opinion. The first two questions are not relevant to this report. The third question was in the following terms: "On the facts found as admitted or proved, was I entitled to convict the appellant?"
The cause called before the High Court of Justiciary, comprising the Lord Justice-Clerk (Ross), Lord Morison and Lord Sutherland for a hearing on 10th May 1994. Eo die, their Lordships made avizandum.
At advising, on 25th May 1994, the opinion of the court was delivered by the Lord Justice-Clerk (Ross).
Opinion of the Court—The appellant is Steven Norman Lister who went to trial in the sheriff court at Edinburgh on a complaint libelling a contravention of sec. 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 or alternatively a contravention of sec. 1(1) of the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993. At the conclusion of the Crown case a submission of no case to answer was made on behalf of the appellant, and the sheriff upheld that submission quoad the first alternative charge. Thereafter the appellant gave evidence, and after hearing the solicitor for the appellant and the procurator fiscal, the sheriff found the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruce Smith V. Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen
...excuse for having the items with him. Each case will turn on its own facts and circumstances (Grieve v MacLeod 1967 JC 32; Lister v Lees 1994 SLT 1328) and it must always be recognised that the question relates, temporally, to the point at which the person is arrested in the public place (D......
-
Kevin Glancy V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...who may use such articles to cause injury or threaten others. In so doing they were endorsing the approach of the court in Lees v Lister 1994 SLT 1328. [3] In the present case the appellant did not dispute that he was carrying the knife. He gave evidence that he had been in the house of a f......
-
David Mcmillan V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...[2010] HCJAC 46; 2010 JC 240; 2010 SLT 1152; 2010 SCCR 636; 2010 SCL 1112 Healy v HM AdvocateUNK 1990 SCCR 110 Lister v LeesSCUNK 1994 JC 223; 1994 SLT 1328; 1994 SCCR 548 Pickett v HM AdvocateUNK [2007] HCJAC 47; 2008 SLT 319; 2007 SCCR 389; 2007 SCL 28 R v EvansUNKWLRUNKUNK [2004] EWCA Cr......
-
Frame v Kennedy
...the course of the appeal. Cases referred to: Houghton v Chief Constable, Greater ManchesterUNK (1987) 84 Cr App R 319 Lister v LeesSCUNK 1994 JC 223; 1994 SLT 1328; 1994 SCCR 548 McCulloch v Normand 1994 GWD 8-470 McKee v MacDonaldUNK 1995 SLT 1342; 1995 SCCR 513 Textbooks etc. referred to:......