‘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
| Author | Joanne Clough |
| Published date | 01 April 2017 |
| Date | 01 April 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022018317698785 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
‘Possession is only ninth tenths of the law’. What
constitutes the final ingredient to ‘have’ a blade ‘with him’
in a public place?
RvHenderson [2016] EWCA Crim 965
Keywords
Offensive weapon, bladed article, ‘has with him’, possession, proximity
Facts
At about 6 a.m. on 29 April 2014, police attended a second floor flat in London where they found the
appellant, his wife, their baby and the appellant’s brother-in-law. Inside the premises, the police found a
bunch of keys which included keys to t he appellant’s Ford Mondeo car. Th e car was parked in a
communal car park at the rear of the flats. Officers also found a stun gun and a false French passport
in a cupboard in the hallway (these items were subject to two additional counts on the indictment but
formed no part of the appeal). Police then searched the boot of the Ford Mondeo car and found a lock
knife in a bag which contained baby changing items. The appellant was arrested and made no comment
when later interviewed by the police in the presence of his solicitor.
The appellant was charged with having a bladed article, the lock knife, with him in a public place
contrary to s. 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988. At trial, the appellant gave evidence that he was not an
occupier of the flat and did not know that the stun gun or passport was in it. He said that he owned a knife
but that he had not put it in his car. He claimed that the lock knife was used by his wife to cut open
cardboard cartons of what was noted by the trial judge as ‘Actimel’ (this may not have been accurately
recorded). He did not know that the knife was in the bag or that the bag was in the car. In cross-
examination, he confirmed that he was the only person who used the car. At the close of the prosecution
case, the defence made a submission of no case to answer on the grounds that the appellant was a
considerable distance away from the car, and therefore, he did not ‘have’ the lock knife ‘with him in a
public place’. This argument was rejected by the trial judge, who accepted the prosecution submission
that the appellant had been in close contact with the lock knife due to it being in his car rather than distant
from the vehicle.
The conviction was appealed on the ground that the judge had mistakenly found the appellant could,
in law, be guilty of having a bladed article ‘with him in a public place’, and therefore, the submission of
no case to answer was wrongly rejected. The appellant argued that it was wrong in law to find that at the
time of his arrest, when he was in a flat on the second floor of a private building, it was open to the jury to
find that he ‘had with him in a public place’ a knife which was in his car in the public car park. It was
submitted that ‘having with’ is a much narrower concept than that of ‘possession’, requiring an
The Journal of Criminal Law
2017, Vol. 81(2) 88–98
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018317698785
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial