Williams, R. v

JUDGE CHAPMAN: On 4th September 2006, at the Crown Court at Wood Green, the appellant, Robert Williams, now 19 years old, was convicted on one count of having an article with a blade or point contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Following an adjournment for reports, on 22nd September he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Latham to serve a term of six weeks' detention in a young offender institution.

He appeals against that sentence to this court with the leave of Christopher Clarke J.

The facts are very simple. Just before mid-night on 30th March police officers saw the appellant and another male, both of whom were wearing gloves, pushing a white van which had no lights on. As the officers approached the van, the appellant and the other man ran away. One of the officers pursued the appellant and shouted to him to stop. As the officer got closer, the appellant did stop, turned round and put his hands up. He was arrested initially on suspicion of taking and driving away a motor car.

When searched, the officers found that he had a lock knife with a blade 2 and a half inches long in his left trouser pocket. The officer asked what the knife was for and the appellant replied, "I forgot I left it in my pocket". He was arrested for possessing an offensive weapon.

When interviewed later on, he explained that he had been to his girlfriend's home and was intending himself to go to his own home afterwards. On the way someone, whom he did not know, had asked him to help push the van, which had broken down and was blocking the road, out of the way. He agreed to do that. As he was pushing the van another car arrived. He did not know it was a police car. When people got out of that car, he ran away because he was fearful that they would be wishing to chase him. When he realised the person running after him was a police officer, he stopped.

In respect of the knife, he said he had not been aware that the knife was still in his pocket. He explained that he was employed as a trainee gardener by Haringey Council and used the knife at his work. That fact was never disputed by the prosecution in the trial that ensued. Normally he left the knife in a locker at work, but on this occasion he had been in a rush to leave and had forgotten to put it where it should have been kept, in the locker.

Apparently the issue in the trial was whether the appellant had been aware of the knife in his pocket and had knowingly entered a public place with it, or whether he had simply forgotten it, that he had failed to put it in its usual place and then gone out. The jury found him guilty.

He was born on 6th June 1987, so is now 19. He was 18 at the time the offence was committed. Importantly, he has no previous convictions, but has one caution for handling stolen goods in the past.

The pre-sentence report investigated his work. It turned out that he had completed a NVQ apprenticeship in amenity horticulture and had been working for Haringey Council for a period of six months. That job had come to an end when he resigned because of a conflict with a co-worker. Since that time, he told the probation officer who wrote the report, he had been actively looking for work. The author of the report took the view that he was someone who plainly had a strong work ethos and was genuinely seeking employment. The conclusion of the writer was that there was a low risk of reoffending for similar offences or different offences, and recommended a community order with a requirement for unpaid work.

The learned judge in passing sentence noted that the appellant had been found guilty after a trial. Of course that meant there was no mitigation to be gained from a plea of guilty, but it is not an aggravating feature. He observed that he had been found in highly suspicious circumstances and was fortunate that no further action had been taken in respect of that part of the case. Whatever he thought about it, that was not a matter which could or should have been taken into consideration when determining the sentence in respect of this one matter, the only matter of which this appellant had been convicted.

The learned judge observed that the appellant is dyslexic and might have some difficulty finding work, but apparently was sceptical about a job offer which the appellant claimed to have as a landscape gardener in Fulham.

He observed that the possession of bladed articles was a serious matter and was a serious problem in London and concluded that the offence was too serious for anything other than an immediate loss of liberty. Since the appellant had never been to custody before, the sentence would be short, namely the sentence of six weeks' detention.

We take particular note of three features of this offence which we think are of importance. Firstly, this weapon was not one of those items, like a knuckle duster or rice flails, which cannot have a legitimate purpose and are only used as weapons of attack. Secondly, this weapon had remained at all times in the appellant's pocket and had not been used to threaten anyone. Thirdly, we take notice of the fact that he was a young man of good character.

No doubt the carrying of knives by young men is a serious problem in London and in many other major cities. There will be many occasions where the carrying of such a weapon will pass the custody threshold. But, in our view, the learned judge in this case went too far in saying that this particular offence, without any aggravating features and which had many mitigating features, did in fact cross the custody threshold.

We will quash the sentence of detention in a young offender institution. In deciding what sentence to put in its place we have taken into account the fact that the appellant has served 13 days in custody, very nearly the equivalent of a sentence of one month's detention, and so in place of the sentence of detention we order that there should be a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months.

LADY JUSTICE SMITH: Will you stand up a moment. Do you understand the nature of the sentence that has been passed upon you?

THE APPELLANT: Yes.

LADY JUSTICE SMITH: Perhaps I shouldn't call it a sentence -- the order that we make. It means that nothing further will happen to you now provided that for a period of 12 months, from the day on which you were first sentenced, you get into no further trouble. If you do get into trouble again and appear before the courts you may find yourself being re-sentenced for this offence. Do you understand that?

THE APPELLANT: Yes, I do.

LADY JUSTICE SMITH: The point is keep out of trouble. You are free to go.

THE APPELLANT: Thank you.