bladed articles
Director of Public Prosecutions v Stanley [2022] EWHC 3187 (Admin)
If you are charged with possession of a bladed article, expert defence solicitors should advise you that Possession of a Bladed Article is a Relevant Offence for the purposes of s.19 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (Knife Crime Prevention Order). There is no requirement for any other offence to have been committed at the same time.
D [2019] EWCA Crim 45
Specialist Defence Criminal solicitors will explain that the definition of a ‘folding pocketknife’ . In this case, the court ruled that the item in question fell within the definition of a ‘folding pocketknife’ and as the cutting edge was less than 3 inches long it was excluded from the prohibition by virtue of s139(3) .
Held: “the issue here is whether the article can be properly regarded as a pocketknife. In our view it plainly cannot. A pocketknife is not an apt description of a cut-throat razor. The items have distinct characteristics, as reflected both in their descriptive names and in their functions. A razor is an article of sufficient sharpness to be used to shave. That would not normally be done by a pocketknife.”
Sharma v Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] EWHC 3330 (Admin)
Expert Defence solicitors will explain whether a knife was a folding pocketknife within the meaning of s139 Criminal Justice Act 1988. In this case, the knife in question had a blade less than 3 inches long but WAS capable of locking the blade in position.
Held: the blade was not IMMEDIATELY foldable so could not satisfy the test of a folding pocket knife. The fact that it was not very robustly secured in place is irrelevant. The issue is not how strong the relevant mechanism is but whether the blade of the knife is immediately foldable at all times simply by applying pressure to the blade. The court was correct to conclude that it was not a folding knife within the meaning of s139(2) and (3) and it was an article to which s139(1) applied.