Pondering weapons & CJA 1988 ....
artem...@my-deja.com
I have been thinking about Appendix 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
A very strange and badly-drafted thing it is: it appears to include a
non-exhaustive list of proscribed weapons that few people will have
even heard of. Why was it necessary to make separate express provision
for the kusari-gama (a sickle blade attached to a rope of braided
horsehair)? It's hardly the sort of thing people encounter in assault
situations in the UK. Would'nt it already be covered by s.1 Offensive
Weapons Act 1959? Is'nt it basically a knife?
Also, the law on kubotans is obscure. This "weapon" is quite simply a 6-
inch long stick, sometimes attached to a keyring. The 1988 Act
prohibits kubotans that are hollow and/or(?) contain "spikes". I've
looked into this and it seems that some American kubotans were at one
time being imported into the U.K. which were hollowed-out, and
contained projectile needles inside as a sort of fad "ninja" accessory.
Can the kubotan be lawful if it is hollow but contains no darts?
Under the latest statutory amendment to the Offensive Weapons Act
(sorry, forgot the reference but it may be the Knives Act 1997), ANY
item that is pointed (it need'nt be "sharp") may be illegal to carry in
public without a VERY good reason. So what if you had a 6-inch stick
that was rounded on one end. Would this be allowed?
What if your 6-inch stick started to taper one inch before the end,
coming to a blunt point?
What sort of gradient and level of sharpness is permitted?
Knuckledusters are a sort of implement worn about the closed fist for
punching. They are prohibited under the 1988 Act. But what are they? A
large padlock may fit my crude definition. In addition it is metallic
(brass). Presumably this is also prohibited?
What about a natural piece of broken-off wood that fit inside the fist
and could be used for punching? Is this a prohibited article? If so, is
this because of the sharp end or its "knuckleduster" potential use or
both?
None of the above questions have been addressed satisfactorily by the
courts. Only the UK legal system would actually make a 6-inch stick an
illegal weapon. Or unnecesarily prohibit a lost of foreign 14th century
medieval farm implements that have been listed in some martial arts
books (of poor authority) as lethal weapons. Or make concentrated
chilli juice an offensive weapon if you put it in a spray.
Rant over. What do YOU think?
Artemis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Fraser
<artem...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7tgh55$go1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hello everyone
>
> I have been thinking about Appendix 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
> A very strange and badly-drafted thing it is: it appears to include a
snip
> Rant over. What do YOU think?
>
> Artemis
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
The law on offensive weapons is generally obvious, and your queries would
easily, for the most part, be answered by any police officer. AFAIK, the
oriental items specified have been listed because they are believed to be
agricultural implements (wrong) and therefore not offensive weapons per se.
Reasons for banning same is the number of dickheads who became 'interested'
in 'martial arts' and wanted to carry such implements to do harm. The
legislation has limited their availability in practical terms. The problem
with most of this legislation is that for much of it the force mind reader
is required in order to fully enforce it.
SRF
artem...@my-deja.com
availability of such weapons.
That aside, in your haste to produce a flippant answer you failed to
consider the issue of the policeman making a subjective judgment about
what is prohibited as an offensive weapon. You also failed to consider
the issue of the legal status of the 6-ich stick. Instead you've given
your own bloody useless comments on nothing in particular apart from
how there were supposedly some people, pre-1988, who wanted to carry
some oriental farming tools (such as the kama) in public in the U.K.
because they were "dickheads" who became interested in martial arts.
If you're a lawyer, I feel very sorry for your clients. Are you sure
you can provide the requisite standard of competency in your work? And
does'nt calling a group of strangers "dickheads" constitute a breach of
Rule 1 of the Practice Rules (bringing the profession into disrepute)?
There is an organisation for alcoholic lawyers that you may wish to
join, it's called SOLCARE. Meanwhile, don't piss off any martial
artists. On second thoughts, go ahead and try it.
Steve Fraser
> I think you're worng about the existing legislation limiting
> availability of such weapons.
your privilege
> That aside, in your haste to produce a flippant answer you failed to
> consider the issue of the policeman making a subjective judgment about
> what is prohibited as an offensive weapon.
Hast maybe, I often have to check out this newsgroup late at night.
Flippant - no.
As far as a police officer making a subjective judgement about what is or is
not an offensive weapon, the various acts actually make it quite clear.
Made, adapted or intended as a starter. The edged weapon category can get a
little more complicated, but the offensive weapons act is very straight
forward. Read it I suggest.
> You also failed to consider
> the issue of the legal status of the 6-ich stick.
A six inch stick is a six inch stick. A Kubotan is is an offensive weapon
per se, if it is acknowledged as a kubotan rather than a key ring, which it
was made to act as by the 'inventor' one Takyuki Kubota hence 'Kubo (the
originator) - Tan (stick). It is made and marketed as a tool for self
defence and is therefore an offensive weapon under the relevant legislation.
Instead you've given
> your own bloody useless comments on nothing in particular apart from
> how there were supposedly some people, pre-1988, who wanted to carry
> some oriental farming tools (such as the kama) in public in the U.K.
> because they were "dickheads" who became interested in martial arts.
>
If you research the subject sufficiently, you will find that many items
suggested to be oriental farming implements are in fact weapons made to
resemble farming implements in order that they could be placed in, say, a
barn where they would be overlooked in a search, but still be on hand if
needed.
> If you're a lawyer, I feel very sorry for your clients. Are you sure
> you can provide the requisite standard of competency in your work? And
> does'nt calling a group of strangers "dickheads" constitute a breach of
> Rule 1 of the Practice Rules (bringing the profession into disrepute)?
> There is an organisation for alcoholic lawyers that you may wish to
> join, it's called SOLCARE. Meanwhile, don't piss off any martial
> artists. On second thoughts, go ahead and try it.
I have not called a group of strangers dickheads as you suggest, merely
those individuals who have acted in a manner calculated to give the martial
arts a bad name (i.e practicing at home then beating a complete stranger to
death at a bus stop just because he could. A dickhead.)
I would add that, even if my remarks were hasty, flippant and bloody
useless, accusations which I deny, then they were not personally insulting
without good cause to any group, or to any individual. Neither were there
any suppositions, incorrect or otherwise, about any one profession. If I
were a lawyer I doubt from your tone that you would in fact feel sorry for
anyone, except maybe yourself. I have never pissed off any martial artist
worthy of the name, but I have pissed off many who thought they were, and
that bothers me not a lot. As far as insulting groups goes, there are many
unfortunate persons victims of alcoholism, who nevertheless manage to remain
polite, and are, their problem aside, decent people.
If you are one of those persons who uses the anonymity of a computer to
indulge in their preferred form of intellectual masturbation then please
direct your insults to one who needs them. I am sure there are newsgroups
who will cater for your type. If on the other hand you are one of those so
called martial artists who confuse violence with ability, then feel free,
consider yourself pissed off and see if I care.
SRF
artem...@my-deja.com
weapon per se, if it is acknowledged as a kubotan rather than a key
ring, which it was made to act as by the 'inventor' one Takyuki Kubota
hence 'Kubo (the originator) - Tan (stick). It is made and marketed as
a tool for self defence and is therefore an offensive weapon under the
relevant legislation.
"If it is acknowledged....."
Again I put it to you: who does the acknowledging?
"a tool for self-defense and is therefore..."
Eh? A "tool for self-defense" is an offensive weapon? Which Act
contains this provision?
>If you research the subject sufficiently, you will find that many items
>suggested to be oriental farming implements are in fact weapons made to
>resemble farming implements in order that they could be placed in,
>say, a barn where they would be overlooked in a search, but still be
>on hand if needed.
There is NO authoritative source from which to research this point.
Illiterate peasants did not record their fighting strategies in
writing, and the articles themselves (such as the Sai and Kama) are
conceivably of some use in farming.
> > If you're a lawyer, I feel very sorry for your clients. Are you sure
> > you can provide the requisite standard of competency in your work?
And
> > does'nt calling a group of strangers "dickheads" constitute a
breach of
> > Rule 1 of the Practice Rules (bringing the profession into
disrepute)?
> > There is an organisation for alcoholic lawyers that you may wish to
> > join, it's called SOLCARE. Meanwhile, don't piss off any martial
> > artists. On second thoughts, go ahead and try it.
>
> I have not called a group of strangers dickheads as you suggest,
merely
> those individuals who have acted in a manner calculated to give the
martial
> arts a bad name (i.e practicing at home then beating a complete
stranger to
> death at a bus stop just because he could. A dickhead.)
So I suppose you are retracting your comments about martial artists
being dickheads. That IS what you've done, is'nt it? After all, in your
initial comments you said nothing about restricting your insults to
individuals who practice at home then beat complete strangers to death
at bus stops.
Not quite sure what NGs you're referring to. I'm sure, however, that
you participate quite fully in every one of them ;-). I don't need the
anonymity of the computer screen to make my comments. As far as I'm
concerned, you made a different comment about martial artists in your
previous post than you are making now.
I'm not a martial artist now, but I used to practise in Shotokan
karate. I've never committed a wanton act of violence. Yes, I was
pissed off and I think you are too now. Since we're not getting
anywhere, let's leave it alone from here. In fact, I was drunk myself
when I wrote that bit about you needing help (not making excuses, it's
true). Please accept my apologies.
That does'nt change the fact that there are some serious problems with
offensive weapons legislation in the UK, and you've failed to identify
the issues. A kubotan does not need any identifying mark stating what
it is. It's a 6-inch stick on a keyring. And I don't think it's clear
about whether it's an offensive weapon. Is it made or adapted for use
as a weapon? That depends on what a weapon is. If I have a tool with
which I can repulse an attack, does that make the tool a weapon? How
about a rolled-up newspaper? I submit that it's adapted for use as a
defensive tool, which is of a different nature to a weapon. What if I
have a rolled-up newspaper taped together tightly in public. Am I
carrying a defensive weapon now?
It's clear that you have nothing original to say on this, and nobody
else on the NG has any dazzling insight that they would like to
contribute. A shame really, because I can foresee some of this
legislation being thoroughly tested when cyclical economic depression
hits us again in the UK.
Steve Fraser
offered.
In an attempt to answer your points without transcribing the whole of the
legislation that applies to offensive weapons, the main act is the
Prevention of Crime Act 1953.
It is an offence to have an offensive weapon whilst in a public place
without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
Offensive weapons are generaly one of two types, defined as:-
1)ANY article MADE or ADAPTED for causing injury
2) ANY other article intended to be used for such a purpose
Within these definitions, most tools for self defense will be capable of
causing injury, with the possible exception of some sort of shield, or body
armour. A truncheon is an offensive weapon per se. It is made to cause
injury. Police carry them, or did, by virtue of lawful authority. A rolled
up newspaper, if possessed with the intention of causing injury, (in a
public place) is an offensive weapon. It may be that you could have a
reasonable excuse however, such as you thought you were going to be attacked
by a neighbour who has been threatening to assault you and you see him
approaching. If however, you have previously prepared this newspaper by
taping it up, then you have adapted it to be an offensive weapon. This is
where the force mindreader comes in, unless you would be prepared to admit
(acknowledge) that you had taped it up for this purpose.
With most of these offences, some of the evidence may have to be obtained
during an interview, unless the circumstances of the offence are self
evident (i.e. defendant seen walking down the street carrying a cleaver and
making threats to assault someone). If during an interview the defendant
admits that his (her) keyfob is a kubotan, and that is was being carried in
case the suspect was attacked when it would be used in self defence, then it
will be an offensive weapon. If the suspect states that it is a keyfob that
some martial arts type gave to him as a keyfob, then it is unlikely to be
classed as a weapon. I have never known of anyone pulled up in possession of
such an article to be charged with possession of an offensive weapon, unless
they also possessed an unstoppable gob and had left their brain at home.
Example problem:- A number of gang members in a particular area started
carrying coke bottles in their pockets containing a half inch or so of coke
(the drink). If questioned, it was just a drink that they hadn't finished,
but would freely admit, off the record, that the bottle was to be used as a
weapon if needed. The fact is that the bottle was an offensive weapon under
the act, however this was impossible to prove in court.
As the legislation is a preventative measure, an article that is snatched up
immediately before being used to harm, would not apply under this act
(decided cases exist).
What a wonderful thing is cut and paste. My original post reads "Reasons for
banning same is the number of dickheads who became 'interested' in 'martial
arts' and wanted to carry such implements to do harm". The fact that a
number of dickheads may become interested in martial arts does not suggest
that every person who becomes interested in martial artists is a dickhead.
You note in your response to my 2nd post that you were drunk when composing
your reply, perhaps you were also drunk when reading my second post, and
thus misunderstood it.
For the record, I disagree with the principles of the act, and feel that
people should be able to defend themselves, and be educated in the law, and
apply it in their defence. That is after all what it is there for.
As far as this particular piece of legislation goes, it has withstood
rigorous testing over the years. There is no such animal as a defensive
weapon, even though some officials tried to pass off the side handled baton
as such a beast when it was first appraised.
I hope that this response meets your high standards, and I hope to hear from
you once more in a reply that also, for the first time, lives up to your
standards.
SRF
Alexander Baron
9...@fraz.freeserve.co.uk "Steve Fraser" writes:
> With most of these offences, some of the evidence may have to be obtained
> during an interview, unless the circumstances of the offence are self
> evident (i.e. defendant seen walking down the street carrying a cleaver and
> making threats to assault someone). If during an interview the defendant
> admits that his (her) keyfob is a kubotan, and that is was being carried in
> case the suspect was attacked when it would be used in self defence, then it
> will be an offensive weapon.
This is another good reason for keeping your mouth shut, if The Filth don't
have any evidence they'll manufacture it. Intent is all in their sick minds.
--
Alexander Baron,
E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
Steve Fraser
Alexander Baron <A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:939540...@abaron.demon.co.uk...
While I agree with the principle of keep your mouth shut, some more than
others, I doubt that the police as a whole manufacture that much evidence.
Two reasons. 1) There are too many people out there who will bend over
backwards to convict themselves. and 2) If they did it that often they would
be a bit better at it than they appear to be at present.
SRF
Alexander Baron
9...@fraz.freeserve.co.uk "Steve Fraser" writes:
> While I agree with the principle of keep your mouth shut, some more than
> others, I doubt that the police as a whole manufacture that much evidence.
> Two reasons. 1) There are too many people out there who will bend over
> backwards to convict themselves. and 2) If they did it that often they would
> be a bit better at it than they appear to be at present.
You haven't been there, it's not just the police, it's the CPS and even
prosecuting barristers.
Graeme Nicholson
Steve Fraser <9...@fraz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7toln4$ro5$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> It is an offence to have an offensive weapon whilst in a public
place
> without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
What qualifies as a reasonable excuse?
I imagine that saying that your carrying the weapon in case you
are attacked and that you need it to defend yourself would not be
accepted.
How about that your carrying for example a knife after being
threatened by an individual with a knife, and you want to defend
yourself in a similar manner. Is this reasonable?
Best regards graeme nicholson
www.abetterworld.co.uk
Steve Fraser
Graeme Nicholson <graeme.n...@abetterworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7tr2bi$pnn$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net...
>
> Steve Fraser <9...@fraz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7toln4$ro5$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > It is an offence to have an offensive weapon whilst in a public
> place
> > without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
>
>
> What qualifies as a reasonable excuse?
> I imagine that saying that your carrying the weapon in case you
> are attacked and that you need it to defend yourself would not be
> accepted.
>
you had good reason to suppose that the man hanging around outside meant the
threats he had just made, I suspect you could tote a weapon. That one's up
to the court though, if it gets that far.
> How about that your carrying for example a knife after being
> threatened by an individual with a knife, and you want to defend
> yourself in a similar manner. Is this reasonable?
No. Otherwise someone would spoil it all by carting around a 3" mortar just
in case. The problem lies in the person who carries his knife in order to
committ a robbery, and then says, when caught, that he was carrying it for
self defence. There are many decided cases, I believe that iron out most of
the obvious problems, although when it comes to intent, again the force mind
reader is required.
David Swarbrick
Nicholson <graeme.n...@abetterworld.co.uk> wrote
>
>Steve Fraser <9...@fraz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7toln4$ro5$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> It is an offence to have an offensive weapon whilst in a public
>place
>> without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
>
>
>What qualifies as a reasonable excuse?
>I imagine that saying that your carrying the weapon in case you
>are attacked and that you need it to defend yourself would not be
>accepted.
>
>threatened by an individual with a knife, and you want to defend
>yourself in a similar manner. Is this reasonable?
No. Many fights start with one saying 'You started it' 'No I didn't you
did' 'Did' 'Didn't' 'Stab' 'Stab' They really are that childish.
Each thinks themselves 'reasonable', and asserts such, but in practice
all they have achieved is to make sure that the other makes sure he is
tooled up also. One man's defence becomes 'I'd better get him before he
gets me', which requires what response from the other?
--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor 01484 722531 da...@swarb.freeuk.com www.swarb.co.uk
IP / IT Law and Contracts. Home of the law-index of 9900+ uk case summaries.
The Law Society regulates us in the conduct of investment business.
Ruth Hine
Graeme Nicholson <graeme.n...@abetterworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7tr2bi$pnn$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net...
>
> news:7toln4$ro5$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > It is an offence to have an offensive weapon whilst in a public
> place
> > without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
>
>
> What qualifies as a reasonable excuse?
> I imagine that saying that your carrying the weapon in case you
> are attacked and that you need it to defend yourself would not be
> accepted.
That is correct
> How about that your carrying for example a knife after being
> threatened by an individual with a knife, and you want to defend
> yourself in a similar manner. Is this reasonable?
It would all depend upon how imminent that threat was, but generally, that
defence is unlikely to work.
--
Ruth Hine
" What about Magna Carta? Did she die in vain?"
Galton and Simpson's "Twelve Angry Men"