Sorry I have been a little on the busy side.
> OT: Carrying pointy things (was Re: Swiss Army Knives now banned by Metropolitan Police London)
> in message <[email protected]>,
> Sniper8052 ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> A scythe whilst possibly not being an offensive weapon would be a
>> bladed atricle, it's an offence to have a sharply pointed or bladed
>> atricle in a public place aswell.**The*differance*is*that*no*intent*is
>> required.
>
> OK, this is beginning to bother me. When I'm doing coppice maintenance
> and other forestry jobs, I have an enormous collection of fairly lethal
> bladed instruments with me. Usually at least one billhook (40cm forged
> blade sharp enough to shave with, and weighing about 2Kg), one slasher
> (lighter than a billhook but with a handle about a metre long), one
> hatchet and one felling axe, and probably more than one locking pocket
> knife.
>
> I use the billhook so regularly that it usually sits loose in the pocket
> of the rear door of the truck, or strapped to the back of my rucksack.
> I have a locking pocket knife in my pocket virtually all the time.
>
> Is this really, really illegal? If so, how are people who do things like
> coppicing supposed to do their jobs?
The law recognises that there are exceptions when a person may have a
legitimate reason for carrying what might at other times be an offensive
weapon or bladed/pointed article.
Whilst employed in your normal work, or going to and from that work, you
would have a defence that the items were tools of your trade. The court,
if it got that far, would then decide if the circumstances fitted that
defence.
I don,t know the layout of your vehicle but I would say to you what I
have said to others in similar circumstances "put it beyond reach".
Whilst it may be the case that you could argue a defence at court
putting anything which is overtly a bladed article beyond immediate
reach will greatly deflect that possibility in the first place.
> On a related note, as you seem to take all the fun out of the discussion by
> using facts....
>
> I believe that if instructed or questioned by a Police Officer in the
> street, I have to give an answer or follow their instruction, but I don't
> have to answer to anyone else (e.g Ministry of Transport officers, who are
> usually accompanied by Police for this reason. I never give them any
> information - I still get caught by surveys, and delayed, but they don't get
> anything useful off me).
>
> What is the situation for Blunketts New Model Army; do I have to answer
> them, or can I just politely tell them 'no comment'. If they attempt to stop
> me, would it be a 'citizens arrest' (in which case I believe I can sue them
> personally for false arrest if no charges are brought), or do they have any
> more rights?
If a PCSO stops you for an offence then you must give him reasonable
information to enable the service of a summons or the issue of a FPN.
PCSO's also have powers to stop vehicles for roadside checks and
searches to detain persons for up to 30 minutes whilst awaiting police,
powers to search persons in the street, subject to PACE, and powers to
use reasonable force to prevent them making off. A Power to Request the
name and address of a person acting in an antisocial manner and a number
of other offences and powers such as enforcing cordons etc....this is
not an exhaustive list.
Once you have complied with giving your name and address or complied
with the substance of the request, provided it is a legal request, your
obligation has ceased.
I am not quite sure what you mean by 'ministry of transport officers'
but assume you mean revenue inspectors. These people hold a limited
type of warrant which gives them the power to request your name and
address if you are travelling without a ticket or having avoided the
correct fare. In practice your best off talking to them because they
will readily call police assistance if they cannot verify your details.
With any official request, police, pcso or revenue inspector you do not
have to give any information which might prejudice your defence or
account for your actions. Your only obligation is to comply with any
legal request and to provide your name and address if required in
connection with an offence. There is one exception, that of being a
witness to a serious offence where a police officer may require your
name and address.
> Well, not exactly, so far as I can tell. Section 141 of the Criminal
> Justice Act gives powers to the Secretary of State to effectively ban the
> manufacture, import, sale, hire or loan of certain weapons by making an
> appropriate Order. It seems an order was passed soon after the Act was laid
> which included certain kinds of knives (but not locking knives) and
> 'telescopic truncheons' which extend automatically. The powers contained in
> Section 141 to ban the sale, hire etc of those items does not amount to a
> ban on their possession, per se, by Statute, whether in a public place or
> not. To commit an offence of possession of any of those items I think you
> would have to look to the generality of the PCA.
Your getting close, S141 relates to possession with intent to offer for
sale, importation, manufacture or passing on of certain articles which
are by their nature offensive weapons proscribed under the schedule.
The offence is complete in public or private places.
As said certain articles are offensive weapons in themselves, a lock
knife and a telescopic baton are both offensive weapons. It is normal
practice to charge small lock knives, those with blades of 3" or less,
under s139 and larger knives as offensive weapons per-se.
The baton by its nature is an offensive weapon and can have no other use.
> Does it make any difference that (I imagine) that Simon's coppicing
> *isn't* work, it's a hobby. Can you still say "tools of the trade"?
Well it's not tools of the trade but it may be 'reasonable excuse'.
Again it depends on the circumstances.
I stopped a chap with a machete which he claimed was tools of the trade,
what trade I said? , painter and decorator he replied! As it was nearly
1am and he was going to the Notting Hill Carnival area I arrested him.
Not a reasonable excuse.
> Has anyone been charged with using a car as an offensive weapon, though I
> suppose the definition of 'carrying' would be interpreted as 'in possesion
> of'.
Yes, a number of people have been charged with attempted murder using a
vehicle as a weapon.
> They would have to open the case first and get the knife out. Any different
> in principle to being in a rucksack or a car boot that is not locked (or a
> tool box for that matter)?
Retrieving a knife from a brief case is far easier than retrieving it
from a stuffed rucksack or boot. Whilst technically there is no
difference in that if a knife of the type discussed were found in a car
boot it would still technically be an offensive weapon the context of
its finding would play a significant part in any defence.
> As soon as the driver intends to use is as a weapon it becomes offensive.
> Before that it is not necessarily so, surely? The case with the baton is
> that its only reasonable use is as a weapon so it cannot be anything other
> than offensive.
Yes, that's true to an extent, however the proof of intent lies with the
offender not the prosecution.
Section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 states:
"Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof
whereof shall lie with him, has with him in any public place any
offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence..."
Offensive weapons are defined by section 1 (3) of the act as:
"...any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the
person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him
[or by some other person]."
> Lad at work had a collection of knives (he was a chef)
> one weekend (for whatever reason) he decided he was
> taking them home . He had got the bus on which a
> fracas caused the police to be called they searched/checked
> everyone and his knife roll was found he told them he was
> a chef and they were his"tools of trade"and they "let him off"
Not an offence, reasonable excuse, and often quoted training scenario.
> I think random in this context just means not just stopping the
> black/arab drivers/cars with wings and loud music etc.
Hey!! That's a racist comment
All the best
Sniper8052
