ive being saying that all along deep ,
you are not going to get off scot free if you have a 3 inch blade in a nightclub .
So have I, but it is not an offence to possess a folding penknife with a blade less than 3". That is not a rough guide, it is written into the law.
If someone has such a knife in a night club, it would have to be proved it was an offensive weapon, which is different to the bladed instrument offence.
The same defences (good reason and lawful authority) apply to that offence too.
For the case in question, if the bloke had pleaded not guilty, the Police would have had to prove the knife was an offensive weapon. A folding knife in itself is not one.
Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits the possession in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed, (including a folding pocket knife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches)
Interestingly, Section139(7) Criminal Justice Act 1988 defines “public place" to include any place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise.
That being the case, are the CPS saying the inside of your car is "a place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise"
Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits the possession in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed, (including a folding pocket knife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches)
Interestingly, Section139(7) Criminal Justice Act 1988 defines “public place" to include any place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise.
That being the case, are the CPS saying the inside of your car is "a place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise"
It is based on prevention rather than cure. To stop knife crime all that had to be done was to build more prisons and lock these people up for a long time. Possession without a good enough reason (ie. a carpet fitter needs a Stanley knife.) Some people go out intending to stick a knife into someone under the excuse that it is self defence. Nasty individuals who really don't care what damage they do to others not to mention the mess that the medical teams have to repair. They need longer sentences to discourage others to carry knives.
In my kitchen untensils and cutlery draw I value my steak knives and carving knives very much because I can't ever replace them with the same quality. I have had them for over 20 years. Try buying a decent knife these days.
Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits the possession in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed, (including a folding pocket knife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches)
Interestingly, Section139(7) Criminal Justice Act 1988 defines “public place" to include any place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise.
That being the case, are the CPS saying the inside of your car is "a place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise"
According to this slightly longer report the magistrate apparently said the knife was not in his possession so it all seems very strange that he pleaded guilty.
Defence solicitor Jolyon Tuck told the hearing: ......... He admits possession of it and has no good reason for having it.”
Of course he had a good reason:-
Full-time carer Rodney Knowles, 61, used the multi-function Swiss Army-style knife for picnics during camping trips in the countryside with his wife (good reason) ...
Mr Knowles ex-plained that the couple had bought a caravan six years ago and the multi-purpose knife “came in handy” on camping trips (good reason) ...
He assured officers he only used it on holidays and to cut up fruit for his wife Pat, 64, who suffers from Huntington’s disease. (good reason)
Also, why didn't the solicitor go on the definition of "public place"
According to this slightly longer report the magistrate apparently said the knife was not in his possession so it all seems very strange that he pleaded guilty.
In the circumstances, as reported, I am astonished that he pleaded guilty, and as for his solicitor!!!
A person in control of a car in a public place has been deemed to mean the contents of the car are in a public place too, so that side of it is not an issue.
Proving that a swiss army knife was an offensive weapon in such circumstances has not been done though.
Why did he plead guilty, and why did his solicitor say it was clear cut?
According to this slightly longer report the magistrate apparently said the knife was not in his possession so it all seems very strange that he pleaded guilty.
But there is mention of concerns that it may have been used in an offensive manner. And not knowing the history you do not know how the man acted when the police pulled him over. The claim that it was only used on holiday begs the question of why it wasn't in the caravan. If it was used for car repairs then it could equally have been stored with the spare wheel, and other tools in the boot. And it's worth pointing out that the 3 inch limit only applies if the blade in question is not used in a threatening manner. The man in question is just lucky that the torch wasn't deemed large and heavy enough to be considered a weapon.
A person in control of a car in a public place has been deemed to mean the contents of the car are in a public place too, so that side of it is not an issue.
I would disagree with that.
It would certainly be worth arguing, that the inside of a private car is not "a place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise".
The public do not, whether for payment or otherwise, have a right to be inside my car.
It would certainly be worth arguing, that the inside of a private car is not "a place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise".
The public do not, whether for payment or otherwise, have a right to be inside my car.
They dont have a right to be inside your pocket, but if you have a knife in there, it is an offence.
The argument is about whether the item is possessed in a public place. If you are in control of a car, on a road, then of course it applies.
If a Police Officer stopped a car, and the occupants were all in possession of knuckle dusters, or other weapons, you would expect them to be able to act wouldn't you?
If a Police Officer stopped a car, and the occupants were all in possession of knuckle dusters, or other weapons, you would expect them to be able to act wouldn't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Express
Defence solicitor Jolyon Tuck told the hearing: ......... He admits possession of it and has no good reason for having it.”
Of course he had a good reason:-
Full-time carer Rodney Knowles, 61, used the multi-function Swiss Army-style knife for picnics during camping trips in the countryside with his wife (good reason) ...
Mr Knowles ex-plained that the couple had bought a caravan six years ago and the multi-purpose knife “came in handy” on camping trips (good reason) ...
He assured officers he only used it on holidays and to cut up fruit for his wife Pat, 64, who suffers from Huntington’s disease. (good reason)
Also, why didn't the solicitor go on the definition of "public place"
But you could equally argue that he wasn't on a camping trip, wasn't with his wife and had no fruit to cut up and so had no need to carry the knife at that time.
But you could equally argue that he wasn't on a camping trip, wasn't with his wife and had no fruit to cut up and so had no need to carry the knife at that time.
So, if, because of my occupation, I have sharp "tools of my trade" in my vehicle, I must remove then every time I use my vehicle for private use
Besides, a folding pocket knife, with a " blade is legal to carry all the time.
Also, a pen knife might be used to carry out repairs, sharpen pencils, peel oranges, remove splinters, etc. at any time.
It is allowed but he got done for carrying it in public. I guess now they are only allowed at home.
No. It is allowed to be carried.
To obtain a conviction, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the defendant had the item, for use as an offensive weapon.
Which is different for other sharp objects, where it is up to the defendant to establish they had a lawful authority, or reasonable excuse for carrying it/them.
So, if, because of my occupation, I have sharp "tools of my trade" in my vehicle, I must remove then every time I use my vehicle for private use
Besides, a folding pocket knife, with a " blade is legal to carry all the time.
Also, a pen knife might be used to carry out repairs, sharpen pencils, peel oranges, remove splinters, etc. at any time.
Well, it all depends on how far you are willing to stretch the definition of "good reason" and in what cases you accept someones reason or not.
Would you accept a youth found carrying a stanley knife in his jacket pocket at 3am in the morning as having a good reason for carrying it as he needed it for his job as a carpet fitter?
My point is that anyone can claim "good reason" it all depends on if that good reason is applicable at the time of being found with it.
I'm talking in general by the way, not specifically about the man in this story
To obtain a conviction, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the defendant had the item, for use as an offensive weapon.
Which is different for other sharp objects, where it is up to the defendant to establish they had a lawful authority, or reasonable excuse for carrying it/them.
OKay so why the frig did he plead guilty? What an awful defence lawyer he had.
Would you accept a youth found carrying a Stanley knife in his jacket pocket at 3am in the morning as having a good reason for carrying it as he needed it for his job as a carpet fitter?
It would depend on when he starts work, and how long his journey to work takes.
If he started work at 0600, and it took him 2 hours + to travel there, then he's going to need to be out and about at 0300, isn't he?
Comments
So have I, but it is not an offence to possess a folding penknife with a blade less than 3". That is not a rough guide, it is written into the law.
If someone has such a knife in a night club, it would have to be proved it was an offensive weapon, which is different to the bladed instrument offence.
The same defences (good reason and lawful authority) apply to that offence too.
For the case in question, if the bloke had pleaded not guilty, the Police would have had to prove the knife was an offensive weapon. A folding knife in itself is not one.
Deep Purple is correct.
Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits the possession in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed, (including a folding pocket knife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches)
Interestingly, Section139(7) Criminal Justice Act 1988 defines “public place" to include any place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise.
That being the case, are the CPS saying the inside of your car is "a place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise"
Police officers don't know all the laws.
Even lawyers and judges don't know the intricacies of every law.
That's why cases often involve "legal arguments".
Unless there's more to the story.
I wasn't posting about the story.
I was posting about the law, as set out in Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act.
In my kitchen untensils and cutlery draw I value my steak knives and carving knives very much because I can't ever replace them with the same quality. I have had them for over 20 years. Try buying a decent knife these days.
I mean maybe that's not what the CPS is saying and that there is more to story than is published in the Daily Mail.
According to this slightly longer report the magistrate apparently said the knife was not in his possession so it all seems very strange that he pleaded guilty.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/169587/Man-with-penknife-in-his-car-is-handed-a-criminal-record
Of course he had a good reason:-
Also, why didn't the solicitor go on the definition of "public place"
In the circumstances, as reported, I am astonished that he pleaded guilty, and as for his solicitor!!!
A person in control of a car in a public place has been deemed to mean the contents of the car are in a public place too, so that side of it is not an issue.
Proving that a swiss army knife was an offensive weapon in such circumstances has not been done though.
Why did he plead guilty, and why did his solicitor say it was clear cut?
The public place thing has been stated before. It is sensible that anything in a car in a public place is deemed to be possessed in public.
I agree about the solicitor, and good reason defence though.
But there is mention of concerns that it may have been used in an offensive manner. And not knowing the history you do not know how the man acted when the police pulled him over. The claim that it was only used on holiday begs the question of why it wasn't in the caravan. If it was used for car repairs then it could equally have been stored with the spare wheel, and other tools in the boot. And it's worth pointing out that the 3 inch limit only applies if the blade in question is not used in a threatening manner. The man in question is just lucky that the torch wasn't deemed large and heavy enough to be considered a weapon.
I would disagree with that.
It would certainly be worth arguing, that the inside of a private car is not "a place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise".
The public do not, whether for payment or otherwise, have a right to be inside my car.
They dont have a right to be inside your pocket, but if you have a knife in there, it is an offence.
The argument is about whether the item is possessed in a public place. If you are in control of a car, on a road, then of course it applies.
If a Police Officer stopped a car, and the occupants were all in possession of knuckle dusters, or other weapons, you would expect them to be able to act wouldn't you?
Not according to all Acts.
Is it specifically stated in the Act, that public place includes a vehicle
If not, then it would definitely be worth arguing to overturn the decision of the previous court who defined it.
Especially, given that, under other Acts, the inside of a vehicle is defined as premises.
I'd be inclined to go for a re-interpretation, based on the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus".
Aren't knuckle dusters illegal anyway
But you could equally argue that he wasn't on a camping trip, wasn't with his wife and had no fruit to cut up and so had no need to carry the knife at that time.
It is allowed but he got done for carrying it in public. I guess now they are only allowed at home.
So, if, because of my occupation, I have sharp "tools of my trade" in my vehicle, I must remove then every time I use my vehicle for private use
Besides, a folding pocket knife, with a
Also, a pen knife might be used to carry out repairs, sharpen pencils, peel oranges, remove splinters, etc. at any time.
No. It is allowed to be carried.
To obtain a conviction, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the defendant had the item, for use as an offensive weapon.
Which is different for other sharp objects, where it is up to the defendant to establish they had a lawful authority, or reasonable excuse for carrying it/them.
Well, it all depends on how far you are willing to stretch the definition of "good reason" and in what cases you accept someones reason or not.
Would you accept a youth found carrying a stanley knife in his jacket pocket at 3am in the morning as having a good reason for carrying it as he needed it for his job as a carpet fitter?
My point is that anyone can claim "good reason" it all depends on if that good reason is applicable at the time of being found with it.
I'm talking in general by the way, not specifically about the man in this story
Yes he can.
He can argue that he received inadequate legal representation.
I think there might also be an argument that the offence he was charged with, doesn't even exist.
OKay so why the frig did he plead guilty? What an awful defence lawyer he had.
It would depend on when he starts work, and how long his journey to work takes.
If he started work at 0600, and it took him 2 hours + to travel there, then he's going to need to be out and about at 0300, isn't he?