Does it have to be a knife to be legal?

[ChargeTTi]

I carry a Victorinox Soldier, the older silver alox one.

The blade is legal, obviously. Folding pocket knife, yes. Cutting edge of blade not exceeding three inches, yes.

What about the awl though? It is a sharply pointed object (therefore it is a sharply bladed or pointed article).

The "cutting edge" if it's sharp enough to call it that is shorter than three inches, but it isn't a blade nor is it in itself a folding pocket knife.

It's therefore not clear weather or not it qualifies for the "this shall not apply to" exemption.

The law is probably intended so that it would be legal, but could someone mount a sound case against me because of the above?

Chris

[phill]

It folds. So why would it be a problem?

If it locked then we have another question (and in my opinion falls into needing a specific reason).

[Rogue]

I carry a Victorinox Soldier, the older silver alox one.

The blade is legal, obviously. Folding pocket knife, yes. Cutting edge of blade not exceeding three inches, yes.

What about the awl though? It is a sharply pointed object (therefore it is a sharply bladed or pointed article).

The "cutting edge" if it's sharp enough to call it that is shorter than three inches, but it isn't a blade nor is it in itself a folding pocket knife.

It's therefore not clear weather or not it qualifies for the "this shall not apply to" exemption.

The law is probably intended so that it would be legal, but could someone mount a sound case against me because of the above?

Chris

Criminal Justice Act 1988 s 139 (2) states that 'Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.'

So, if it is sharply pointed, it comes under this section. If you had a SAK that contained only an awl, then in theory it could not engage the s 139(2) exception, leaving you with only the s 139(4) defence of 'good reason or lawful authority'.

I take it that the thrust of your question is whether the exception still applies where the sub 3" blade is only one of a number of tools in the SAK?

Consider that you had a folding knife with two blades - one sub-3" and one super-3" cutting edge. If the police found it, do you think that they would give it back because one of the blades engages the exception? I would suggest that they would keep it because the minor exception to the rule would not be considered to prevail over the more substantial offence that has occured. Now, can you explain why the "sharply bladed article" should be treated any differently to the super-3" blade, when the Act is clearly aimed at both?

Well, you asked for a reason not to, didn't you? Back in the real world, I can't imagine you would ever have a problem. If you consider the wording, I think you have a very strong and logical argument that the folding knife as a whole constitutes the article; the awl is not an article in its own right and the primary function of the SAK is to act as a knife.

Just don't go and get nicked to test the theory out.

[ChargeTTi]

If you consider the wording, I think you have a very strong and logical argument that the folding knife as a whole constitutes the article; the awl is not an article in its own right and the primary function of the SAK is to act as a knife.

What is my strong and logical argument that the awl is not an article? If it isn't an article then it isn't a "sharply bladed or pointed article" but how is it not an article?

If something isn't an article simply because it's part of a SAK then a super 3" blade would actually be legal, because it wouldn't be a "sharply bladed or pointed article"

In the real world, that can't be right. The locking blades on multitools aren't legal just because they are part of a larger item and therefore not articles.

The way I would look at it if I was trying to make a case against myself is that the awl is not legal because it isn't a folding pocket knife, and that the fact that there is a legal knife attached is irrelevant. Is there a defence against that?

I'm not trying to make more things illegal than actually are, I'm just keeping myself covered from all angles .

There is possibly an argument that the awl is a type of knife, having a single beveled chisel ground edge, but that's going off in another direction.

Chris

[ChargeTTi]

An article is defined, for these purposes, as "An individual object".

I wouldn't like to be the test case but that opens up some interesting possibilities.

Chris

[phill]

There is a thread around here where you were told that law is all in the interpretation.

No one is going to interpret the awl as illegal. All your arguments are irrelevant given it would require a unique case law judgement in a test case with huge reaching consequence (virtually all SAKs would become illegal for EDC) and requires an extremely precise interpretation of the letter of the law beyond the obvious intent of it. To argue against it is to say black is white then try and prove that it isnt.

[ZDP-189]

It might well fall foul of the law as a push dagger.

[cockroach]

There is a thread around here where you were told that law is all in the interpretation.

No one is going to interpret the awl as illegal. All your arguments are irrelevant given it would require a unique case law judgement in a test case with huge reaching consequence (virtually all SAKs would become illegal for EDC) and requires an extremely precise interpretation of the letter of the law beyond the obvious intent of it. To argue against it is to say black is white then try and prove that it isnt.

You're dead right.
Going by the letter of the law, the awl would need good reason to carry.
In practice, it is so unlikely to be seen as a problem as to be negligible.
However, interpretation of the law beyond it's obvious intent is how the lock knife ruling came about in the first place.

[Hepotec]

You've heard the old maxim.....Ask three lawyers a question and you'll get five possible answers.........(And six bills.)

[ChargeTTi]

Yea. Rouges answer along with cockroaches has confirmed what I was thinking when I posted the question.

I'd worked out the possible reasons for illegality already and was checking in case there was a defence I'd missed.

Could be argued to be illegal but unlikely to be a problem.

I'm just trying to find and deal with all possible cases against my EDC, before someone else does in an attempt to "send a message to teenage knife carriers". No, not likely to happen but I can't afford to take chances.

Thanks,

Chris

[ChargeTTi]

If something isn't an article simply because it's part of a SAK then a super 3" blade would actually be legal, because it wouldn't be a "sharply bladed or pointed article"

Ignore this bit, just found a big problem with it. The blade, (individual article or not) makes the SAK as a whole a sharply bladed or pointed article. So if it doesn't qualify for the exemption it isn't legal.

Chris

[ajt125]

do you only have to be 16 to carry a legal edc knife then??

ant.

[ChargeTTi]

You can be any age. you only have to be 18 (used to be 16) to buy a non EDC legal knife. Not that anyone will sell them to under 18's.

Chris

[Corso]

why stop at the Awl what about the scissors,cork screw or can opener?

There is no mention of how many folding blades or sharp points consitutes a pocket knife

which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.

The fact that the law describes it in this was makes me belive they were covering the posibility that a pocket knife may also be a sharply pointed article.

[Saint-Just]

In the case of the Soldier (my EDC as well) the case is without merit: the awl comes quite sharp and is my favourite tool to cut ties , open parcels etx. Easy to keep sharp as well. Ergo it is a non locking sub 3" blade and is legal

The defense rests