REGINA v Glidewell

Factual and Procedural Background

On 25th September 1997, in the early hours, a police officer stopped a car driven by the Appellant, a mini cab driver, in The City of Bexley. During the stop, the officer discovered a piece of wood protruding from beneath the carpet in the driver's footwell and a rope cosh in the vehicle. The Appellant explained both items had been left in the car by a passenger a few days earlier. Additionally, the officer found a knife in the door pocket, but the Appellant was acquitted of the count relating to the knife possession. The Appellant was convicted by a jury at Croydon Crown Court on two counts of having offensive weapons and fined accordingly, with an order to pay prosecution costs. He appealed against these convictions with leave granted by the Single Judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by excluding forgetfulness as a possible reasonable excuse for possession of offensive weapons.
2. Whether the Appellant’s explanation of forgetfulness in relation to the possession of offensive weapons could constitute a reasonable excuse under the law.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge wrongly instructed the jury that forgetfulness was not a reasonable excuse for possession of offensive weapons, contrary to the direction sought by defence counsel.
• Relying on the precedent in R v McCalla, the Appellant argued that forgetfulness, when coupled with particular circumstances about how the items came to be in possession, may amount to a reasonable excuse.
• The Appellant emphasized that he was not responsible for placing the weapons in the vehicle and had simply forgotten to remove them due to being busy.

Crown's Arguments

• The Crown maintained that the trial judge’s direction was correct, citing the dismissal of the McCalla appeal.
• They noted the factual distinction that, unlike in McCalla, the Appellant was not the person who introduced the weapons into the vehicle.
• The Crown did not seek a retrial following the quashing of the convictions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the trial judge's directions to the jury, specifically the statements that forgetfulness was not an excuse in law. It held that this was a misdirection because, depending on the facts, forgetfulness can be relevant to establishing a reasonable excuse for possession of offensive weapons. The Court considered the facts that the Appellant did not introduce the weapons into the vehicle, the short period of possession, and the Appellant’s evidence about being busy and forgetting the items. These factors made the issue of forgetfulness and reasonable excuse a matter properly for the jury's consideration. The Court concluded that the misdirection may have influenced the jury’s verdicts, rendering the convictions unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED the appeal and quashed the Appellant’s convictions on the two counts of possession of offensive weapons.

The Crown did not seek a retrial, and no new precedent was established beyond clarifying that forgetfulness may be relevant to reasonable excuse depending on the circumstances. The direct effect is the removal of the convictions against the Appellant.