Not Guilty Verdict Secured in Unusual Knife Possession Case

Defence Highlights Lawful Excuse and Disclosure Failures

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Ms Karen Struckley of KST Solicitors, represented the Defendant in these very unusual proceedings, before the Central Criminal Court, concerning an allegation of possession of a bladed article in a public place.

The Prosecution case arose from a report that the Defendant had been seen with a kitchen knife in a grassy field near where he lived. The CPS relied on Police evidence, Body Worn Video, and the Defendant’s acceptance that he had the knife in his possession. The Defence case, consistently advanced from the outset, was that the Defendant had a lawful and reasonable excuse – he was using the knife as a tool to cut grass as food for his rescue rabbits (and a Bag for Life full of cut grass was in fact formally seized at the scene by Police as an Exhibit).

The matter was prepared for trial, with a Not Guilty plea entered and full trial directions set. At Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing in the Old Bailey, the Crown Prosecution Service insisted that the case must continue to trial. However, it was marked by significant and sustained disclosure failures – and, one year on, despite service of a detailed Defence Statement, the CPS had failed to provide any substantive response to the Defence, or comply with its ongoing disclosure obligations.

The Defence sought to list the case for s.8 CPIA 1996 application due to Crown disclosure failings – but also made renewed submissions that the case did not meet the Full Code Test, whether evidentially or in the public interest. Defence Counsel invited the Crown to reconsider the propriety of pursuing a trial in circumstances where this was simply a case of a mature gentleman peacefully cutting grass to feed his four rather inventively named pet rabbits. Following these submissions, and prior to the hearing, the Crown reviewed the case and confirmed that they would be offering no evidence, as there was “no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.” The Prosecution accordingly offered no evidence, and a Not Guilty verdict was returned.