Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Crim 1948
Case No: 200902218 D2 
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: Wednesday, 12th August 2009

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE GOLDRING 

MR JUSTICE GRIFFITH WILLIAMS 
 
MR JUSTICE KING 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E G I N A 

v 

MIGUEL LIMA
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr M Waite (Solicitor Advocate) appeared on behalf of the Appellant 
Mr M Pinfold appeared on behalf of the Crown 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 

1.	LORD JUSTICE GOLDRING:  On 3rd March 2009, at Wood Green Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of having on 7th October 2008, without good reason or lawful authority, a double‑ended knife in a public place, namely Morley Avenue in London.  The issue in this appeal against conviction is whether the acquittal of a co‑defendant called Miguel Almeda on the same count was logically inconsistent with the appellant's conviction.  
2.	It is necessary to set out the facts with some care.  On the day in question Almeda was the front seat passenger in a motorcar on Morley Avenue.  The appellant was in the back.  When the police stopped the car they found a blue plastic bag which contained a white knife box with a knife inside between the front passenger seat and the doors.  The knife had been purchased about 20 minutes before.  Almeda was over 21.  He could lawfully purchase such a knife.  The appellant was 19.  He could not.  The knife was purchased in Almeda's name.  He paid over the money for it and received the receipt.  
3.	When he was arrested, Almeda, according to the arresting officers, said he had bought the knife for Lima and at Lima's request.  He signed the officer's notebook of that conversation.  In interview, Almeda changed his account.  He said he had bought the knife for himself.  He, Almeda, was a collector of weapons and wished to hang it on his wall as a decoration.  He gave the same account in evidence.  Albeit he had signed the notebook, he denied telling the arresting officers that he had bought the knife for Lima and at Lima's request.
4.	Lima's account in interview was different.  He said that it was his idea to buy the knife.  He collected such weapons and wanted it for decoration at his home.  He gave evidence to similar effect at the trial.  
5.	Those accounts of course were remarkably similar, but mutually inconsistent.  The Crown alleged that at least one of the defendants was not telling the truth as to how the knife came to be purchased.  The Crown further suggested that neither was telling the truth as to why it was purchased.
6.	In evidence, in what, not surprisingly, was described by the Crown as a last minute attempt to resolve the contradiction as to the purpose of buying the knife, Lima said that at the time of his arrest he was living with Almeda.  Accordingly, when he referred to displaying it at his home, it was Almeda's home too.  The difficulty with that explanation was that the address he had given to the police as to where the knife was to hang was his father's.
7.	A further important aspect of the evidence before the jury was an acceptance the appellant that he took possession of the knife at the shop.  He carried it from the shop to the motorcar.  In doing so, of course, he had it at that time in a public place.  In the interview, which he had accepted as true, he said he had concealed the knife when he did so.  In evidence he said that that particular part of the interview was not true.  Finally, he said he could not remember.
8.	In his directions to the jury, the Recorder carefully, and more than once, emphasised that each defendant had to be considered separately.  
9.	Mr Waite, who has represented the appellant before us and did so below, submits an argument which may be encapsulated in the following way.  The issue in this case was whether a defendant had good reason for possession of the knife.  The acquittal of Almeda meant that the jury accepted that he had good reason for possession of the knife.  That meant that the jury had rejected the prosecution case that display as an ornament at home was incredible and untrue.  The appellant had raised the same defence and argument.  The jury was therefore logically bound to take the same view with regard to the appellant.  He has also expressed concern that the jury may have held against his client his more serious criminal convictions which were admitted before the jury by agreement.
10.	The argument, in our view, does not begin to get off the ground.  The jury's reasoning in reaching their verdicts seems to us plain:  
(1) The ostensible purchaser of the knife had to prove to the selling shopkeeper that he was over 21.  Lima could not because he was not.  Almeda could, that is why a knife was bought in his name.  
(2) It was bought in Almeda's name but was for Lima.  That is why he was immediately given it.  That is why he carried it to the car.  In carrying it to the car he concealed it.  He did so because he knew he should not have it.  
(3) When arrested Almeda told the truth: he had bought it for Lima at Lima's request.  That is why he signed the officer's notebook.  He was lying in interview.  He was lying when he gave evidence.  
(4) Lima too lied in his interview.  He too lied when he gave evidence.  He lied when he said in interview he wanted it for decoration at his home.  He further lied when he said in evidence that he was referring to a home which he was sharing with Almeda.  
(5) The knife was never bought for display either at Lima's or Almeda's home.  The prosecution were right to assert that the explanation for the purchase of the knife was incredible.  
11.	In those circumstances, the jury having repeatedly been told to took at each defendant separately, it was understandable how they came to convict Lima.  He had the knife in a public place.  It was his in the motor car.  He had no good reason for having it.  They might of course have convicted Almeda on a joint enterprise basis ‑‑ it may be indeed that he was very lucky to be acquitted ‑‑ however, they were not logically obliged to.  In the circumstances this appeal is without substance and must be dismissed.