COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIS HONOUR JUDGE MOLE
HARROW CROWN COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE ELIAS
MR JUSTICE JACK
|- v -
|LEROY LLOYD ROBERTS
Mr A Smith (instructed by CPS) for the Crown
Hearing dates : 01/09/03
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Mantell:
"In this section "public place" includes any place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access whether on payment or otherwise"
The judge accepted that the front garden was not a place where the public was permitted access. In our view that was plainly right and is consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Edwards and Roberts  67 Crim App Rep 228, which concerned a similarly worded provision. As Diplock LJ pointed out (p.231), persons such as the postman or milkman who have an implied licence to enter the garden do so not as members of the public but rather as lawful visitors. Nonetheless, the learned judge held that the front garden of this particular property, a Victorian terraced house, was a public place. The garden was no more than a metre wide: it was possible for the appellant to sit on the windowsill of the front room and put his feet on the top of the garden wall. The judge held that having regard to the purpose of this particular legislation, a public place was not merely land to which the public was permitted access but might also include land adjacent to areas where the public had access, provided that the harm against which the section was designed to provide protection could still be inflicted from such a place, and here it was perfectly possible for the appellant standing in his own garden to use the knife against a passing pedestrian.