Jump to content
Account Notice
  • To post a recruitment query in the "Recruitment Areas" or in the "Force Specific Areas" you will require a Recruitment Pass or a Membership Package. Click HERE to read more.
  • Your Account Is Currently Limited
Stephen Maize

Law on offensive weapons

Recommended Posts

Stephen Maize

 

On offensive weapons: Strict Liability, Ignorance of nature of weapon no excuse

on the the case of Bradley v. Moss 1974, I think the carrier should have entitled to carry the weapons as he feared his life was in grave danger? What is your view of the case?

A lady was carrying a sheath knife for self defence in Westminster,London back in 1964 and she was arrested and sent to jail for a day. Carrying a weapon just in case is no excuse. She was not in immediate danger.

In Grieve v. Macleod 1967, A taxicab driver had with him, a rubber tube with a piece of glass Inserted in it. The police found out and he said the reason was because in Edinburgh, taxicab drivers were known to be attacked. The sheriff said that was no excuse and he was convicted.

my view is that the judge should allow the carrying of weapons if a person is actually in immediate danger and the threat is very real.

on the other hand, A woman was afraid she was going to be attacked by the Yorkshire ripper and carried a knife and she was arrested by the police and convicted. Do I think she was right to be convicted? Yes. That is foolishness in the extreme. She was fearful and being fearful makes it worst.

Can you carry a weapon just in case you were attacked and you were attacked? Somewhat yes. You will most likely be given a suspended sentence. 

Can you carry a weapon just in case you “might” be attacked? Absolutely not! The more people that do this, the more likely people will start arming themselves.

In 1991, in the London Subway a man carried a sword stick and he was attacked on the subway and two criminals smashed the window and choked off the man’s air supply. The swordstick had a knife in it and he stabbed the two criminals with it. The two criminals and the man was convicted. The judge gave him a suspended sentence and condemned the recent violence on the subway.

You can use anything to use if you are attacked, if you were not planning on carrying it for self defence. E.g. A carpenter carrying his tools. an umbrella. A brick you found on the road.

Do you think this is the correct understanding of the law?

 

To me, notwithstanding the court cases above, I think the law on offensive weapons is pretty flexible and fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Chief Cheetah

Legal Disclaimer

This area of the forum is intended for members to seek advice on Law and Police Procedures applicable to England & Wales. Just like you would pop into your local police station to should the need arise. Any advice on a specific area of law is from either currently-serving UK police officers, and is offered to the best of their ability, or from members of the public who are perhaps aspiring to be serving police officers and may not hold the necessary level of knowledge to provide such assistance or by any other member who may offer their opinion. Either way such advice can only be treated as an opinion and nothing more.

Members should look for the Verified Members Badge that appears on the posters name as advice from members holding this badge are verified police employees. The information is based on their own individual experiences, expertise and training. It is stressed, however, that if any information or advice found in these forums is used by any person or organisation, then the respective police officer(s) and staff can not and will not take any responsibility for any outcome in any investigation in a criminal or civil enquiry. Any advice or opinion offered is to the best of the individuals knowledge and ability based on the information you have supplied, and we will stress that we will never be knowingly misleading or untruthful in content.

  • Please note, we do not offer advice or assistance in order to avoid penalties that you have incurred or maybe pending.
  • Such requests are deemed to be of an Operational nature and against our main Forum Rules.
  • You should always seek Legal Advice from a Qualified Solicitor in the event of any impending prosecutions or other involved legal matter.

Police Community Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Stephen Maize

Please note, that during the London Riots some people carried baseball bats and other weapons to chase the hudlums away, this was allowed because of an Imminent threat of attack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funkywingnut
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Stephen Maize said:

Please note, that during the London Riots some people carried baseball bats and other weapons to chase the hudlums away, this was allowed because of an Imminent threat of attack. 

Allowed by who? The law never changed.

Your initial post flits between possessing an offensive weapon to the use of force, which fall under different bits of legislation. 

You cannot carry an offensive weapon because you fear attack, imminent or otherwise, unless or course you are trying to describe instant arming. Getting convicted and a suspended sentence is not getting away with it. 

Edited by Funkywingnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


Stephen Maize
52 minutes ago, Funkywingnut said:

Getting convicted and a suspended sentence is not getting away with it. 

I understand this. I agree that the judge is not letting you get away with it, a suspended sentence is leniency by a judge in the hope of not arming yourself again.

but at least you won’t have to serve a jail sentence.

 

I agree that the law never changed but it was allowed by the breakdown of law and order. Everything is dealt with it’s own merits and it depends on the individual circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Mac7

Can I ask the reason for posting this topic? You are a new member and first post is regarding the carrying of weapons for self defence. This is not something new (as your case law shows) but it is topical due to the current knife crime problems.

The law is robust around this issue so I wonder what you seek to query or clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

BlueBob
3 hours ago, Stephen Maize said:

I understand this. I agree that the judge is not letting you get away with it, a suspended sentence is leniency by a judge in the hope of not arming yourself again.

but at least you won’t have to serve a jail sentence.

 

I agree that the law never changed but it was allowed by the breakdown of law and order. Everything is dealt with it’s own merits and it depends on the individual circumstances.

Are you sure about your comment - I agree that the law never changed but it was allowed by the breakdown of law and order. ?   If you are sure, then perhaps by wandering into  a police station with some video showing yourself / the person with an off heap and admitting that they were carrying and did so because it was allowed, then see what happens.  Chances are it will be a quick trip to the interview and chargrillse room.
It never was or has been allowed in the circs you describe.  That the person/s had not been identified and so having opportunity to be challenged on it from a legal perspective, does not equate to it being allowed in your context of it being legal to do so.

But then again me feels a bit of a troll moment coming along!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


ParochialYokal

Who ever refers to the Underground as the ‘London Subway’?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Funkywingnut
11 hours ago, Stephen Maize said:

I understand this. I agree that the judge is not letting you get away with it, a suspended sentence is leniency by a judge in the hope of not arming yourself again.

but at least you won’t have to serve a jail sentence.

 

I agree that the law never changed but it was allowed by the breakdown of law and order. Everything is dealt with it’s own merits and it depends on the individual circumstances.

I am unsure how you are managing to misinterpret the legislation and subsequent case law as you are. There is little ambiguity in the carrying of offensive weapons, and because someone isn’t caught or prosecuted, this is not therefore proof of an exception.  

Plenty of crime wasn’t pursued during the riots, as it’s not every day of the week, this doesn’t legitimise it. 

I think my question is, what is the intent of this post and what are you hoping to prove? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


Stephen Maize
Posted (edited)

 

There was a cash carrier for a bank in 1964 and he had a knuckleduster on him to protect himself from cash grabbers when traveling to another bank. He was caught by the police and arrested. He was in his car and was wearing the same orange jumpsuit he wore when carrying money. He said he forgot that he had it. Evans v. Wright 1964, he was convicted and lost his appeal. The judges said it may be a reasonable excuse to carry it when going to the bank but not at any other time.

I agree that forgetfulness is not an excuse. Do I believe his conviction was just. Yes.

Please note, that because of the case of Evans v. Hughes, judges have held that carrying a weapon just because you are going to a dangerous area is not acceptable and is not a reasonable excuse. You should stay away. I agree.

I just want people to tell me if my understanding of the law is correct and to clarify it.

my understanding if your life is not in imminent danger, you should not be carrying a weapon.

I think I have the correct understanding of case law and of the judges. 

People can carry if their lives are in imminent threat.

I understand that in the 1972 case, there is no hard and fast rule as to how long the person takes ahold of the weapon. The judge did not draw a line but said that 7 days close to the borderline. Thus today, Judges are free to give a suspended sentence or not.

 

Edited by Stephen Maize
Added sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Maize

Even during the London Riots, people gathered in groups and did not carry weapons and they pushed the hudlums out of their area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Funkywingnut
6 hours ago, Stephen Maize said:

 

There was a cash carrier for a bank in 1964 and he had a knuckleduster on him to protect himself from cash grabbers when traveling to another bank. He was caught by the police and arrested. He was in his car and was wearing the same orange jumpsuit he wore when carrying money. He said he forgot that he had it. Evans v. Wright 1964, he was convicted and lost his appeal. The judges said it may be a reasonable excuse to carry it when going to the bank but not at any other time.

I agree that forgetfulness is not an excuse. Do I believe his conviction was just. Yes.

Please note, that because of the case of Evans v. Hughes, judges have held that carrying a weapon just because you are going to a dangerous area is not acceptable and is not a reasonable excuse. You should stay away. I agree.

I just want people to tell me if my understanding of the law is correct and to clarify it.

my understanding if your life is not in imminent danger, you should not be carrying a weapon.

I think I have the correct understanding of case law and of the judges. 

People can carry if their lives are in imminent threat.

I understand that in the 1972 case, there is no hard and fast rule as to how long the person takes ahold of the weapon. The judge did not draw a line but said that 7 days close to the borderline. Thus today, Judges are free to give a suspended sentence or not.

 

You appear to be attempting to describe ‘instant arming’ in the face of an imminent threat, but that certainly isn’t 7 days nor can it be planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Funkywingnut
6 hours ago, Stephen Maize said:

Even during the London Riots, people gathered in groups and did not carry weapons and they pushed the hudlums out of their area.

What’s your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


Stephen Maize

Even during the London Riots, people gathered in groups and did not carry weapons and they pushed the hudlums out of their area.

 

my point is some people carried weapons and some didn’t 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
There are 32 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

About us

Police Community was originally founded in 2014 by two serving Police Officers.

In 2016 it was incorporated as a limited company called RAW Digital Media Limited and then purchased 3 other forums; Police Specials, UK Police Online and Police UK to form the largest policing discussion forum network in the UK.

Get in touch

  • 20-22 Wenlock Road, London N1 7GU
  • contact@rawdigitalmedia.co.uk
  • 0844 357 0111
  • Forums In Our Group - Police.Community - UKPoliceOnline.CO.UK - PoliceSpecials.COM - PoliceUK.COM

Twitter

Facebook

    Meet The Team

  • Chief Bakes
    Chief Bakes Management
  • Chief Rat
    Chief Rat Management
  • Chief Cheetah
    Chief Cheetah Management
  • Rocket
    Rocket Global Moderators
  • David
    David Global Moderators
  • Fedster
    Fedster Global Moderators
  • Devil
    Devil Global Moderators
  • MindTheGap
    MindTheGap Global Moderators
  • blakey
    blakey Global Moderators
  • Techie1
    Techie1 Global Moderators
  • Sir Penguin
    Sir Penguin Global Moderators
  • PCW
    PCW Global Moderators
  • Hoofing
    Hoofing Global Moderators
  • XA84
    XA84 Global Moderators
  • Remmy
    Remmy Global Moderators
  • job_done
    job_done Global Moderators
  • Sapor62
    Sapor62 Global Moderators
×
×
  • Create New...