Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: Offensive (or defensive) weapon

  1. #1

    Offensive (or defensive) weapon

    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.
    Handle every stressful situation like a dog. If you can't eat it, hump it or learn from it then piss on it and walk away.

    "HOSPITALITY" - the art of making guests feel at home (when you wish they were).



  2. #2
    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?.
    "Don't say I didnae warn ye !"

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by private fraser View Post
    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?
    Handle every stressful situation like a dog. If you can't eat it, hump it or learn from it then piss on it and walk away.

    "HOSPITALITY" - the art of making guests feel at home (when you wish they were).



  4. #4
    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.

  5. #5
    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 by private fraser; 18-04-2015 at 12:54.
    "Don't say I didnae warn ye !"

  6. #6
    SD Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    East Midlands M1/M69 Junction 21
    Posts
    5,387
    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?

  7. #7
    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????

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by enfieldspares View Post
    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?

  9. #9
    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.
    "Don't say I didnae warn ye !"

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by old man View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. New Police Weapon
    By THE STALKER in forum Jokes & Funnies
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 21-06-2013, 17:10
  2. new weapon cleaning kit
    By widows son in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-03-2012, 17:32
  3. Defensive deer
    By Dakaras in forum Videos
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21-02-2011, 21:23
  4. Offensive weapon conviction
    By armo. in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 18-04-2010, 10:57
  5. Offensive
    By matt458 in forum Jokes & Funnies
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-04-2010, 15:10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •