Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

Self defence and security guards


SM_Banned

Recommended Posts

John Bernard
On 21/09/2019 at 11:16, sierragolf95 said:

No. Carrying any item in itself for self defence is a no and so is possession of a weapon similar to pepper spray, which is in fact a firearms offence

I happen to have a copy of the 2015 edition of  "Blackstone's Police Operational Handbook"  . Its entry on offensive weapons says this: 

 

 "Defences
Possess (s1)
Lawful authority
This extends to people such as an on-duty police officer with a baton.
Reasonable excuse
Whether an excuse is reasonable is for the court to decide having heard all the circumstances. These could include—
• people carrying the tools of their trade (eg hammer/saw by a carpenter or filleting knife by a fishmonger);
• self-defence—if there is an imminent threat, this defence may be available...".                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   I do not know if you are a serving constable and what material you are relying on. Can you tell me please? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • John Bernard

    36

  • Ether

    18

  • Father Jack

    16

  • BlueBob

    8

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Piffle.  All they'll really do is annoy them than you ruined their £30 "EA7" tracksuit, and likely give you an extra kicking for it. 

After the Magna Carta was quoted i only need 'maritime law' to get a full house in freeman bingo.

Or he's been using it on himself 

Posted Images

John Bernard
On 24/09/2019 at 02:29, Beaker said:

You've been wrong many times then.  By their nature they can't be either an incapacitant or irritant.  They would be illegal in the UK if they were.  All you will do is annoy someone, and this will result in a kicking.

Excuse me but irritant sprays can be lawfully possessed in the UK on a "Section 5 authority issued by the Home Secretary or a "Section 7 permit" issued by a Chief Constable. The references are to the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) and can be seen here:  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/contents    

S.54 is the reason why constables do not require personal authorities or permits.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Jack

To my knowledge, Section 1(1) Prevention of Crime Act 1953 still makes it an offence to have an offensive weapon in a public place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, proof whereof shall lie on him. Self defence does not constitute a reasonable excuse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beaker
39 minutes ago, John Bernard said:

Excuse me but irritant sprays can be lawfully possessed in the UK on a "Section 5 authority issued by the Home Secretary or a "Section 7 permit" issued by a Chief Constable. The references are to the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) and can be seen here:  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/contents    

S.54 is the reason why constables do not require personal authorities or permits.  

Good luck getting it.  As far as I'm aware the authority has never been granted.  Their only use is Self Defence, and Self Defence is not a lawful reason to possess a firearm in Britain.  You MIGHT be allowed in NI, but as I don't work there I'm not familiar with their firearms laws. 

So basically they're illegal for anyone who doesn't have a policing or military purpose in the UK. 

TL:DR You're wrong.

 

Edited by Beaker
typos
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Jack
2 hours ago, John Bernard said:

Excuse me but irritant sprays can be lawfully possessed in the UK on a "Section 5 authority issued by the Home Secretary or a "Section 7 permit" issued by a Chief Constable. The references are to the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) and can be seen here:  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/contents    

S.54 is the reason why constables do not require personal authorities or permits.  

Section 5 authority can indeed be issued by the Home Secretary. However I believe that these are intended for manufacturers  and exporters of firearms, TASERs and incapacitant sprays or for private organisations involved in their testing or evaluation. You are quite correct that there is also a dispensation for crown servants to possess section 5 firearms. However I cannot see any realistic scenario where a member of the public would be granted such authority to possess an incapacitant spray or a TASER. 

Edited by Father Jack
For clarity
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
1 hour ago, BlueBob said:

Are we really saying that pepper spray, as most people know it, would not be regarded as a noxious substance?  Or perhaps more correctly, that it has been excluded, perhaps by court results, as NOT being a noxious substance.  
 

I was referring to the marker spray not Pepper

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
1 hour ago, John Bernard said:

Excuse me but irritant sprays can be lawfully possessed in the UK on a "Section 5 authority issued by the Home Secretary or a "Section 7 permit" issued by a Chief Constable. The references are to the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) and can be seen here:  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/contents    

S.54 is the reason why constables do not require personal authorities or permits.  

Good luck getting one, other than police and military I don’t think anyone else has. 

You cannot legally possess an incapacitant spray unless you make use of an exemption. Self defence isn’t a defence. 

Edited by Ether
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueBob
4 hours ago, John Bernard said:

Excuse me I am learning my way around this site. The reason why I asked about carrying weapons for self defence is that I was taught differently when I joined The Met 42 years ago. If something has changed I would like to know what exactly.

The chances are training was along there lines of taking a chisel out of the ouse as a carpenter is fine, taking that same chisel out solely so as to defend yourself is not.  So IMHO, things haven't changed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Bernard said:

Excuse me I am learning my way around this site. The reason why I asked about carrying weapons for self defence is that I was taught differently when I joined The Met 42 years ago. If something has changed I would like to know what exactly.

Nothing has changed, except perhaps your legal knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Radman
5 hours ago, Beaker said:

Good luck getting it.  As far as I'm aware the authority has never been granted.  Their only use is Self Defence, and Self Defence is not a lawful reason to possess a firearm in Britain.  You MIGHT be allowed in NI, but as I don't work there I'm not familiar with their firearms laws. 

So basically they're illegal for anyone who doesn't have a policing or military purpose in the UK. 

TL:DR You're wrong.

 

I remember reading a FOI which states Dover Port Police have this authority from the Home Secretary to carry PAVA/CS as they are not covered under the police exemption. Why the exemption wasn't added in the expansion of Port Police jurisdiction in 2014 I don't know as it would have been seemingly an easy fix. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Interestingly enough BTP was in a similar position with the firearms act having to be amended to accommodate us, hence why we were fairly late to having CS issued. 

Edited by Radman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
10 hours ago, Radman said:

I remember reading a FOI which states Dover Port Police have this authority from the Home Secretary to carry PAVA/CS as they are not covered under the police exemption. Why the exemption wasn't added in the expansion of Port Police jurisdiction in 2014 I don't know as it would have been seemingly an easy fix. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Interestingly enough BTP was in a similar position with the firearms act having to be amended to accommodate us, hence why we were fairly late to having CS issued. 

 Because you are not classed as a crown servant? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Radman
30 minutes ago, Ether said:

 Because you are not classed as a crown servant? 

The forces roots are what was referred to as "Employer Constables" and weren't included under the Police Act 1996 which is where alot of Constable exemptions in law are referenced. When BTP was still sworn in under the BTC 1949 act, prior to our set legal jurisdiction being set it was more to do with an oversight than not being "crown servants" as alot of legislation over the years it turns out missed BTP (including the RTA for issuing NIPs.) 

What our legal team were doing at the time these statutes were passed and didn't raise it as potential problems I don't quite know but we had problems with our firearms team having to be issued individual firearms licences from the Home Secretary when they were first set up until that omission could be fixed... Childrens Act is another one where we can't take children into the police care or control, it must be a HO police inspector that does that, I have actually seen problems arise from this operationally. 

It was all a bit strange but we seem to be more on the ball these days ensuring we're added to legislation as and when required. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
3 hours ago, Radman said:

The forces roots are what was referred to as "Employer Constables" and weren't included under the Police Act 1996 which is where alot of Constable exemptions in law are referenced. When BTP was still sworn in under the BTC 1949 act, prior to our set legal jurisdiction being set it was more to do with an oversight than not being "crown servants" as alot of legislation over the years it turns out missed BTP (including the RTA for issuing NIPs.) 

What our legal team were doing at the time these statutes were passed and didn't raise it as potential problems I don't quite know but we had problems with our firearms team having to be issued individual firearms licences from the Home Secretary when they were first set up until that omission could be fixed... Childrens Act is another one where we can't take children into the police care or control, it must be a HO police inspector that does that, I have actually seen problems arise from this operationally. 

It was all a bit strange but we seem to be more on the ball these days ensuring we're added to legislation as and when required. 

We suffer the same lack of forward leaning. 
 

Thanks 

Link to post
Share on other sites
John Bernard
On 09/06/2020 at 18:35, Beaker said:

Good luck getting it.  As far as I'm aware the authority has never been granted.  Their only use is Self Defence, and Self Defence is not a lawful reason to possess a firearm in Britain.  You MIGHT be allowed in NI, but as I don't work there I'm not familiar with their firearms laws. 

So basically they're illegal for anyone who doesn't have a policing or military purpose in the UK. 

TL:DR You're wrong.

 

Quote: " Self Defence is not a lawful reason to possess a firearm in Britain....".  Thank you for your response. The jurisdiction that I was referring to is England and Wales.

 

Shall we have a look at s.19 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended):  

 

19 Carrying firearm in a public place.

A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) he has with him in a public place

[F1(a)a loaded shot gun,

(b)an air weapon (whether loaded or not),

(c)any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm, or

(d)an imitation firearm.]     https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/19 

 

There are those words again: " without lawful authority or reasonable excuse", the same as in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and s.139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 , which uses the term "good reason". My question  is, why do at least two present day constables think that self defence is not a lawful reason to possess a weapon? 

 

I am showing my age here but I was on full time public order duty during the disturbances in 1981. One of the outcomes of that was Attorney Generals Practice Direction No. of 1983. There was an entry on it on the PNLD in 2008 when I retired. Here it is, and it is very relevant today with the ineffectiveness that police forces have shown recently: 

 

A-G Ref No 2 of 1983 [1984] QB 456 Court of Appeal


The defendant was a shopkeeper. His shop was in the centre of extreme riots which were taking place. On the night of the 11th/12th July 1981, £600 worth of damage was done to his shop and £400 worth of his goods were stolen. After this attack he remained in his shop without sleep and in fear of further attack from 1.30 a.m. until the morning of 14th July. He was in fear that he and his property might be the subject of further attack. He made 10 petrol bombs to protect himself in case he was subject to further attacks. He was charged with offences under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883. He raised the defence of self defence and the jury acquitted him. The Attorney General referred a question on a point of law to the Court of Appeal as to whether the defence of self defence could be used to cover preparing for attack.....
 

 

In our judgment a defendant is not left in the paradoxical position of being able to justify acts carried out in self-defence but not acts immediately preparatory to it. There is no warrant for the submission on behalf of the Attorney General that acts of self-defence will only avail a defendant when they have been done spontaneously. There is no question of a person in danger of attack "writing his own immunity" for violent future acts of his. He is not confined for his remedy to calling in the police or boarding up his premises.

He may still arm himself for his own protection, if the exigency arises,...".  http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/A-G-Ref-No-2-of-1983.php

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
John Bernard
22 hours ago, BlueBob said:

The chances are training was along there lines of taking a chisel out of the house as a carpenter is fine, taking that same chisel out solely so as to defend yourself is not.  So IMHO, things haven't changed.  

It is to your credit that you qualify your post with "IMHO". See my post about the Attorney Generals Practice Direction No. of 1983. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Police Community is a forum that is supported financially through advertisements. It is a breach of our standard use policy to use Adblock plugins/software on our site. 

In order to continue using our site you will need to disable Adblock across our site. Alternatively you can purchase a membership package from our online store to remove adverts as part of the membership subscription. 

https://police.community/remove-adverts/

Thank you for your support.

I have disabled Adblock