The first appeal against a mandatory three-year jail term for possessing a bladed article in a public place without lawful reason has failed.

Tough legislation introduced by Government in 2005 in response to increasing numbers of attacks involving bladed articles, including machetes and knives, set three years as the minimum time a convicted offender must spend behind bars for being in possession of such an article in a public place without reasonable or lawful excuse.

Damien Mendoza, 31, of Link Lane, Hamilton Parish, was sentenced to a three-year term in January following conviction at Magistrates? Court for having a folded butterfly knife in his hand during a confrontation with security staff at the Splash night club in Bermudiana Road on August 30 last year.

It was argued in Supreme Court yesterday that Mendoza should have his sentence reduced or suspended on the grounds that the knife was part of his ?tool kit? as an electrician and because he had not opened the butterfly knife to reveal the blade during the incident in the early hours of the morning.

Lawyer Ricky Woolridge, representing Mendoza, gave a lengthy presentation to Chief Justice Richard Ground outlining why he believed his client should have his sentence reviewed or the trial re-heard.

Mr. Woolridge said Mendoza was open to conviction if it was deemed he had a bladed article in public without lawful or reasonable excuse, but he argued his client did have a reasonable excuse because he worked as an electrician and earlier on the night in question had gone out for a night on the town and been given the knife by a man in the car who had returned it to him after he had left it behind after being given a lift from the Police Recreation Club on an earlier occasion.

He said that as Mendoza had nowhere else to put the knife he kept it with him when he went to the night club. During the evening he was involved in an altercation with a member of the security staff and was thrown out of the premises. It was at this point that the knife fell from his pocket and he picked it up and had it in his hand when he was shouting back at the security staff who had ejected him from the club, said Mr. Woolridge.

He said that at no time did Mendoza open the butterfly knife or point it in a threatening manner at anyone and added this version of the events was borne out by a Police statement of a witness, a Mr. Kendrick Zuill, who also worked at Splash.

This statement was not referred to in the original Magistrates? Court trial where Mendoza had represented himself, however Mr. Justice Ground said this did not amount to a reason for a re-trial.

Mr. Woolridge continued with the argument that Mendoza had good reason for being in possession of the knife because he used it as part of his tools as an electrician and, because it had been returned to him that evening when he was in town, had no other option than to carry it with him.

He went on: ?I would submit that, as Mr. Mendoza was not represented in Magistrates? Court, he did not benefit from having the argument for a suspended sentence. Parliament does not expressly prohibit suspending a sentence.?

However, Mr. Justice Ground dismissed the appeal and said Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner ?had dealt with the case adequately with the matters before him. There were no grounds on which he could suspend this sentence.?

He added: ?Even if there were grounds it would require ?exceptional grounds? but there are no grounds at all. The lack of intent of use does not justify suspension of the sentence.

?By being in possession of a bladed weapon in a public place without excuse the full weight of the law falls upon him. The whole purpose of this legislation is to stop people going around with bladed weapons.?

Mr. Justice Ground said he would give a fuller, written judgement at a later date.