Confiscation proceedings - power to postpone beyond period of six months from conviction - requirement for inquiry whether 'exceptional circumstances' existing before making order

R v Soneji and Bullen: CA (Lord Justice Pill, Mr Justice Gray and Mr Justice Roderick Evans): 20 June 2003

The defendants pleaded guilty to offences of conspiracy to convert property and remove it from the jurisdiction, knowing or suspecting that it represented the proceeds of criminal conduct, and they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

Considerably later, confiscation orders were also made, but the defendants appealed on the ground that those orders were made without jurisdiction where they followed upon postponement beyond six months from the date of conviction but the court had not made inquiry whether 'exceptional circumstances' existed such as would found such a postponement.

Nicholas Valios QC and Christopher Meredith (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendants; David Walbank (instructed by the Solicitor, Customs & Excise) for the Crown.

Held, allowing the appeals, that if a court was proposing, pursuant to section 72A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to adjourn confiscation proceedings beyond the period of six months beginning with the date of conviction, it must be satisfied that there were 'exceptional circumstances', and that the requirement for such circumstances had been imported into the exercise of the common law power to postpone; that although confiscation orders should not be quashed for mere defects in procedure, nevertheless, in order to give effect to the requirement, and so that the expression should not be a mere incantation, it was a requirement that there should be an inquiry into the circumstances and the possibility and feasibility of a timely hearing; and that since it was clear that there had been no such determination, the orders could not stand.

Having bladed article in public place - defence of 'good reason' - requirement for evidence substantiating good reason for having article in public place at relevant time

R v Bown: CA (Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Simon and Sir Richard Tucker): 23 June 2003

The defendant was charged with having an article with a blade or point in a public place, contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

His defence was that the reason he had given in interview for having the knife, to self harm, amounted to a 'good reason' for the purposes of the statutory defence under section 139(4), but he did not give evidence.

The judge ruled that the reason advanced was not capable in law of amounting to 'good reason' and accordingly withdrew that defence from the jury and directed them to convict.

The defendant appealed against conviction.

Jamie Porter (assigned by Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Carolyn Branford-Wood, solicitor (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Bournemouth) for the Crown.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that an explanation did not necessarily amount to a reason or even a good reason; that where ordinary English words were used without any indication that any special meaning attached to them, the judge should be slow to find that the facts could not fall within them, reluctant to impose his own view and only withdraw the matter in a clear-cut case; that the 'good reason' must be for having the article in a public place, at the time the defendant had it; that whether there was sufficient evidence of when and where the defendant intended to use the article for the stated purpose was highly relevant to whether 'good reason' could be established; and that the evidence had been insufficient to establish the defence of 'good reason' with the requisite degree of particularity and the judge had been right to direct a conviction.