WAS: The laws on offensive weapons and knives explained.

[cromdubh]

Hi all

I have noticed recently that there has been quite a few questions raised about the legality of certain items, and some confusion over the current laws governing knives.

I have had a quiet few days at work, so decided to print off everything I could from the Police National Legal database and try and write a concise giude to the current laws.

I will break it down into a few sections for easier reading.

OFFENSIVE WEAPONS

The wording of the offence is as follows:

Without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, had with youin a public place, an offensive weapon

OK lets look at the definition of some of those terms.

Lawful Authority

This means that authority by the Home Office has been granted to certain bodies, to allow them to carry an article which would otherwise be classed as an offensive weapon. This includes on duty police officers carrying batons, soldiers carrying bayonets etc.

Reasonable Excuse

There is no definitive list of what is considered reasonable excuse. Some examples are:
using an item in self defence if under imminent threat. A man picks up a brick because he has been confronted by a gang of kids for example. This defence would not cover someone carrying a knife on the off chance of being threatened, nor would it cover a situation where the person has knowingly and deliberatly put themselves in a position, where violence could be expected. This defence would also cover instant use, where the person actually uses the item as an offensive weapon. IE using a set of keys as an impromptu knuckleduster, when set upon.

Innocent reason. This would include martial artists bring home weapons after a training session, bushcrafters using an axe in the appropriate setting, sportspersons using an article in the confines of their sport.

Forgetfullness This could be used as a defence in certain circumstances. Forgetting you had a weapon on you is not a defence in itself, but say for example a taxi driver finds a knuckleduster in the back of his cab, he shoves it under the front seat, intending to drop it off at the police station, but forgets. This defence would not usually cover items left in pockets, when you visit the pub.

Not reasonable excuses

Ignorance Claiming that you thought an extendable baton was an aerial for example is not an excuse for possession.

Protection Claiming you had possession of an item for protection is not an excuse.

To commit suicide Having an item in your possession to kill yourself is not a defence.

The next part of the charge is Had with you. This means that you knew or ought have known that you had the article in your possession.
For an item to be in your possession, it needs to be either on your person (in your hand or your pocket) or in your vehicle. Possession could also include secreting the item close at hand in a bush (hard to prove) or being held by a friend, who is close by.

Next is in a public place. A public place is any highway or a place where the public have access to, on paymnet or otherwise. This includes shops, pubs, clubs etc. as well as out on the street or on the road.

The final element is an offensive weapon. I will describe this in the following post.

[Colin KC]

Please can you clarify the sources &/or the parts which you have interpreted from the sources.


Ta

[cromdubh]

Offensive weapons

An offensive weapon is an article which is made,adapted or intended to be used as an offensive weapon.

An article which is made to be an offensive weapon is anything which was designed and manufactured to be used as a weapon. This includes knuckledusters, batons, bayonets, daggers, swords, martial arts weapons, disguised knives etc. There is not an exhaustive list of what comes under this catagory. Items in this catagory are also refered to as offensive weapons per se.

If you are arrested for possessing an item in this catagory, the prosecution only need to prove possession. You still have a defence if you can prove lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Examples of this include a policeman having lawful authority to possess a baton, soldiers having lawful authority to possess bayonets, re-enactors having a reasonable excuse to possessing a sword, mace, halberd, etc. and martial artists having reasonable excuse for possessing martial arts weapon.

Articles which are adapted to be an offensive weapon would include a beer bottle smashed with the intent to use it as a weapon, a screwdriver with the point filed sharp and the good old baseball bat nails hammered into it.

If arrested for possessing an item in this catagory, the prosecution would need to prove possession and that the fact that the item was adapted to be used as an offensive weapon. If someone is clearing up smashed bottles and is set upon, the use of the bottle as a weapon would not constitute it being adapted to be a weapon. The bottle was already smashed and was not smashed with the intent to turn it into a weapon. You could still have lawful authority or a reasonable excuse to possing an item in this catagory though.

The final catagory is articles which are intended to be used as an offensive weapon. Pretty much everything could fall into this catagory. If you pick any item up with the intent to use it as a weapon, it would fall under this catagory.
The prosecution would need to prove you intended to use the item as a weapon to be charged. A lot would depend on the circumstances around your actions at the time of arrest.

Examples would be using a set of keys as an impromptu knuckleduster before getting involved in an organised ruck, or carrying a knife with the intent to stab someone.

Even if the prosecution proved intent, the defence of Instant use could negate this. As mentioned before, if a person is in imminent fear for their safety, using an item with the intent to use it as a weapon is not an offence.

I would like to point out again, that no matter what catagory the article falls in, if you can prove lawful authority or reasonable excuse, you have not committed an offence. (yes this includes flick knives, knuckleduster etc.)

It is also worth pointing out that the points that the prosecution have to prove need to be beyond reasonable doubt, but the defence only have to prove on a balance of probabilities that the had a reasonable excuse. This basically means that the prosecution have a harder job proving their part.

[cromdubh]

Please can you clarify the sources &/or the parts which you have interpreted from the sources.


Ta

The police national legal database mate. I have all of the legal topics printed out in front of me.

[cromdubh]

OK, moving onto Sec. 139 Criminal Justica Act 1988.
It is an offence to Have with you without Good reason or Lawful authority in a Public place an article, which has a blade or is sharply pointed or a folding pocket knife which has a blade with a cutting edge which exceeds 7.62cm (3 inches)

I have already covered the definitions reasonable excuse, lawful authority, had with you and a public place.

An article which is bladed or sharply pointed would include ice picks, knives, bill hooks, awls etc. It does not include screwdrivers, cricket bats (thats a different story) and other such items. The law was made to stop people carrying weapons and not to stop people from doing their jobs.

A folding pocket knife does not include flick knives, balisongs or lock knives.


In theory, this is an easier charge to prove than being in possession of an offensive weapon, as the prosecution only need to prove possession. No intent is needed. You would still have the defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Again this only needs to be proved on the balance of probabilities. Remember the word is REASONABLE.

Quite worryingly, after the Voilent Crime Reduction Act came into effect (Feb 2007 in this case), the penalty for possessing a bladed or sharply pointed object is exactly the same as possessing an offensive weapon (6 months and/or fine at magistrates court or 4 years and/or fine at crown court).

What this means in effect is that carrying a lock knife without reasonable excuse is as severe as carrying a flick knife without reasonable excuse. Different charge, same sentance.

[cromdubh]

I also dug out some stats regarding people arrested for being in possession of a knife of some kind.

In 2007 (up until 31st July), 72 people have been arrested in Hertfordshire for being in possession of a knife. Every one of them was initially arrested on suspicion of being in possession of an offensive weapon. No one was arrested on suspicion of having a bladed or pointed object.

Out of those 72 people:

• 14 admitted to carrying a knife with intent to use it as a weapon
• 8 were charged, due to carrying an item made to be an offensive weapon (6 with flick knives, 2 with balisongs)
• 18 were charged with having a bladed or pointed object (sec. 139) after not offering a reasonable excuse
• 4 were charged after denying having the knife with intent to use it (the circumstances around their arrest went a long way to prove intent.)
• 3 were given really dodgy cautions for posssing an offensive weapon, when they should have cautioned under sec.139.
• 3 were charged with being in possession of an offensive weapon, when an charge under sec. 139 should have been used (all 3 cases were dismissed at court).
• 5 cases were so vague regarding the circumstances around the charge, I could not tell.
• 17 people were released with no charge after explaining their reasonable excuse for possessing a knife.

I do not know how many people were stopped by police, carrying a knife and were not arrested.

Not sure if anyone will find that useful, but I know Tantalus was interested in the stats.

If anyone has any questions regarding my post, then I am more than happy to try and answer them.

[Colin KC]

The police national legal database mate. I have all of the legal topics printed out in front of me.

No Cromdubh, you misunderstand. If you're presenting these statements as law, can you indicate the passages that are your own interpretation of the law.

[cromdubh]

No Cromdubh, you misunderstand. If you're presenting these statements as law, can you indicate the passages that are your own interpretation of the law.

Errrmmm none of them. All I have done is adapted the wording to make it more user friendly.

If you disagree with any of it then feel free to let me know (adding any links to contradictory evidence)

[Colin KC]

Errrmmm none of them. All I have done is adapted the wording to make it more user friendly.

If you disagree with any of it then feel free to let me know (adding any links to contradictory evidence)

I'm concerned that your adapting of the wording of the law might be taken as law by a member & that your interpretation might be flawed

For example, exactly which part of the law allows a cabbie to have a knuckleduster under the seat of his cab?

[cromdubh]

I'm concerned that your adapting of the wording of the law might be taken as law by a member & that your interpretation might be flawed

For example, exactly which part of the law allows a cabbie to have a knuckleduster under the seat of his cab?

http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/glid.htm. I simplified the wording.

You obviously have a problem with this post so please feel free to delete it.

[Ross]

Agreed, thats why it can be discussed

[Colin KC]

Thing is , & I've thought long & hard about this, you achully think that putting the law into simple terms (that you can unnerstand) is a flawed method, because you're interpreting it.

For example, the link you give to rjerrard doesn't state that forgetfullness is a defence, it says that

"to have forgotten that one has an offensive weapon in the car that one is driving is not in itself a reasonable excuse" but "when such forgetfulness is coupled with particular circumstances relating to the original acquisition of the article" the combination might be a reasonable excuse for having the offensive weapon.

Then later says

In Cugullere [1961] 1WLR 858 the Court of Criminal Appeal held that the phrase under consideration ‘must mean "knowingly has with him in any public place". The court went on to make clear that it meant that the defendant must knowingly have possession of the article in question. If a person forgets that he has possession of an offensive weapon, the Court of Appeal has had held that he nevertheless continues to "have it with him"

Your logic is horribly flawed & I don't think that any part of this should be taken as law.

[Colin KC]

Please feel free to post observations & comments here

[mikesknives]

I don't think theres any need to insult the guy for making an effort, flawed or otherwise.

[Tantalus]

Very interesting indeed Crom, many thanks

There is often a huuuuuuuuuge difference between "official statistics" and facts, thanks for looking out these facts.

Not going to post any opinions in this thread because it would muddy the waters , might start another one though with the facts as a starter

Tant