Offensive (or defensive) weapon

Eyefor

Well-Known Member
Several years ago (mid 80's at a guess) a guy was prosecuted in (I believe) London for carrying and offensive weapon in the form a sword stick.

His Defence argued that it was that it was not an offensive weapon but a defensive weapon although he was prosecuted anyway.

After the conviction the guy launched a request for funding to pay for an appeal on the grounds as stated above and I sent (if I remember correctly) £50 but never could find out what was the result of the appeal.

I have trawled the internet for ages trying to find out what happened so, does anyone remember this case and know where might I find the outcome of the Appeal please?

Whilst, from a policing point of view, I could see that it would be difficult to manage "defensive" weapons I am sure that had the guy won his appeal then it might not get too much publicity?

Thanks.
 
I remember it vaguely.
Think he got the swordstick back after a lengthy process, can't remember if he won the appeal.
I have a few swordsticks (antiques). Perfectly legal but not to carry outside.
Why the interest?.
 
I remember it vaguely.
Think he got the swordstick back after a lengthy process, can't remember if he won the appeal.
I have a few swordsticks (antiques). Perfectly legal but not to carry outside.
Why the interest?.

My interest is mainly that I think it is a valid argument (although, admittedly, very difficult to Police) and if it went to appeal what was the verdict?
 
I don't know what the outcome was either. But, at the cost of stating the obvious, the title "offensive weapon" is a little misleading when you look at the legal definition:

The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".

So a sword stick, by itself with no other intention by the user, is an offensive weapon and to carry one in public is all that is needed to commit the offence. The intention of the person in possession does not come into play, except in the case of something that is not made to cause injury. For example, a pool cue is not an offensive weapon, unless the person carrying it has it in their possession for that purpose.

One interesting case occurred on 4 March 2014, when a man went into Lavender Hill Magistrates Court, with what he thought was his walking stick. When he was searched on entry, security staff discovered that his stick contained a sword. The man in question was arrested by the police. Although they accepted that he had bought it thinking all he had bought was a walking stick, the offence was complete and an official caution was given.
 
It's on here amongst some other interesting cases.
The one you want is May 1987....

"May 1987
Eric Butler, 56, a retired clerk, had a charge of malicious wounding withdrawn by the Crown Prosecution Service after he stabbed a mugger on the London Underground with a swordstick. However, he was later convicted of carrying an offensive weapon. He was fined pounds 200, given a 28-day suspended sentence and had the swordstick confiscated. The sentence and forfeiture order were quashed on appeal the following year."

The one following that is pretty shocking... the disabled man who spent 8 months in Brixton prison for what amounted to self defence and was acquited
Read on...

When have a go means death - Life and Style - The Independent
 
Last edited:
Necessity knows no law. So in my understanding if you have a legitimate instant need for self defence then, no matter that any weapon you have is unlawfully possessed it becomes, at that instant LaWFUL to possess and use. So it may be that is what was the basis of Mr Butler's appeal?
 
a sword stick, like a bayonet is made to cause injury.
its possible use as an aid to walking does not change this.
Therefore it is always an offensive weapon.
ie Illegal in a public place.

Self defence is separate issue
A person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself or others for whom he is responsible and his property.

It would be for the jury to decide if the amount of force was reasonable.
However the Police and crown prosecutors in the past seem to jump on
anyone using self defence, or having a go.

Society in this country is against carrying any sort of weapon.
and doesn`t differentiate whether it is for intended for offence or defence.

exceptions...National dress Skean dhus,.... morrismens balloon on a stick????
 
Necessity knows no law. So in my understanding if you have a legitimate instant need for self defence then, no matter that any weapon you have is unlawfully possessed it becomes, at that instant LaWFUL to possess and use. So it may be that is what was the basis of Mr Butler's appeal?

Not sure necessity comes in to it?

My understanding is that you can only respond/defend with an "appropriate" level of force?
In any event this is most likely to be examined in a court of law?
 
The Butler and Careers cases were both decided in courts of law. They seem to have handled each case very differently though.
I don't know the case details but its hard to see the justification in the way Mr Careera was treated. It seems that even in extremis,taking the law into your own hands is a heinous crime in itself in this country.
It's the difference between being a citizen as in some countries and a subject as in this one.
 
Not sure necessity comes in to it?

My understanding is that you can only respond/defend with an "appropriate" level of force?
In any event this is most likely to be examined in a court of law?

Article 2 of the ECHR specifies reasonable force (as does British law, same as appropriate) however in court this is generally interpreted as the minimum necessary.

From an initial police response perspective it is often necessary to arrest both parties in order to fully investigate and secure all available evidence before a charging descision is made by the CPS. Once all evidence has been gathered it is beyond the police and in the hands of the CPS and justice department to decide if someone should be charged and any subsequent court proceedings.
 
I don't think anyone is pointing the finger of blame for anything at the police here. Of course they should arrest and investigate. Although sadly it's clear their ability to do this is diminishing by the day. However - back to the topic - The courts do seem to have got themselves in a tizzy over this. No doubt the only winners will be solicitors and barristers who rake it in whenever there's any fuzziness over things like this.
 
I think it is a joke law.
bought a 14lb sledge hammer from a high street tool shop.
he said "you'll have to put it in a plastic bag"
what kind of bag holds 14lb i do not know
he was worried I would get stopped and have it confiscated.

now this intrigued me
saw a man digging a hole on the pavement with a pick axe.
dif he carry it from his van to the hole in a bag!?!?!


i once successfully argued with a police officer that the 7" divers knife in my car was neither offensive nor in a public place!
nor was the box of hammers, screwdrivers, Stanley knives and wrenches in the boot!!
 
Several years ago (mid 80's at a guess) a guy was prosecuted in (I believe) London for carrying and offensive weapon in the form a sword stick.

His Defence argued that it was that it was not an offensive weapon but a defensive weapon although he was prosecuted anyway.

After the conviction the guy launched a request for funding to pay for an appeal on the grounds as stated above and I sent (if I remember correctly) £50 but never could find out what was the result of the appeal.

I have trawled the internet for ages trying to find out what happened so, does anyone remember this case and know where might I find the outcome of the Appeal please?

Whilst, from a policing point of view, I could see that it would be difficult to manage "defensive" weapons I am sure that had the guy won his appeal then it might not get too much publicity?

Thanks.

Don't understand the logic of that atall...

Anybody therefore carrying an offensive weapon could state the above.

A sword concealed in a stick is no diferent than a knife concealed in a pocket..

Sword carrying fella has barney with someone and so called defensive sword is stuck through them... What evaluation of character or suitability to carry a lethal weapon in public did he pass ?
 
I think it is a joke law.

i once successfully argued with a police officer that the 7" divers knife in my car was neither offensive nor in a public place!
nor was the box of hammers, screwdrivers, Stanley knives and wrenches in the boot!!

But as the inside of a motorcar on a public highway is deemed to be a public place you did good.
 
An acquaintance used to carry a pickaxe handle in his car for self-defence. He got stopped by the police one day and knowing him was likely bolshie about it and wound the coppers up, the upshot being that he was going to have it confiscated and be done for carrying an 'offensive' weapon. As he was a builder, he managed to get them to back down on the basis that it was an essential tool of his trade and he therefore had a legitimate use for it and reason to have it in the car.

However, carrying a lot of things nowadays, especially knives, is another matter even if they're legitimate work tools. So taking a knife of any sort after work into a public place becomes dodgy. My wife was involved in a case some years back where a carpet fitter had gone straight from work to a race meeting and had the misfortune to get marginally involved in some sort of fracas which saw the police descend on a group of racegoers. On being searched, a work-knife was discovered that he'd completely forgotten about and although it hadn't been produced or been visible, having legitimately carried it at work earlier in the day didn't save him from being arrested, charged and successfully prosecuted for 'carrying an offensive weapon in public'. The magistrates accepted that it was done without any criminal intent but it was an absolute offence in this instance.
 
they are not allowed to carry anything intending to use it as a weapon defensive or otherwise infact you cant have anything for defence in your Home ie baseball bat next to bed incase of intruders would get you banged up if proved

however if you go down find an intruder and he pulls a knife and backs you to the cupboard you store your Sports equipt in and you happen to grab a Baseball bat you use on the weekend for baseball your all good n legal (up to a point ) to defend your self

and a sword stick is on the list of offensive weapons that carry automatic status in public as a disguised blade so are not allowed to be bought sold made imported or exported
(exemption for antique over 100yrs old )

unfortunately the guy was done for breaking the law and shouldnt have been let off
 
But as the inside of a motorcar on a public highway is deemed to be a public place you did good.

they can't have it both ways
If I am allowed to lock and leave a rifle or shotgun in the car or for that matter transport it around
then to flip it over and say a box of tools constitutes a range of offensive weapons and IS a public place if in a car.....

they need to choose the viewpoint
 
I'm afraid CharlieT is right. For certain offences the inside of a vehicle being used on the road is deemed a public place unless parked in your garden.

For offensive weapons, or points and blades, searches are carried out under Section 1 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the actual offence is covered by Section 1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 + Section 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

They are actually quite complex bits of legislation with lots of little caveats. . .
Much of the time the Officer will base his decision on whether to arrest or not, not so much on what he has found but rather the circumstances of him finding it.. . This would be done by questioning under caution at the roadside to ascertain the circumstances.

In terms of a stalker (I carry a fixed bladed knife). . . . The legislation states I commit the offence, however I rely on the defence caveat that I have a reasonable excuse to have it whilst stalking. .

Popping out for a sly pint at the pub afterwards, I can expect to be arrested.

You must have bribed the copper with donuts and coffee to wriggle your way out of the diving knife one Ed, unless of course you were doing a bit of snorkling in the Commonwealth Pool. . . :D
 
Last edited:
Back
Top