Reasons for carrying a knife (in the UK).......

[Mantic]

Aha, but you see how many housewives had a glock 17 in the kitchen drawyer?

The point is, no houswife is going to hand in her favourite Sabatier kitchen knife to this amnesty. While every kitchen drawyer is full of the deadliest knives you can find, any amnesty is a joke. This is the problem the lawmakers have. So long as large dangerous knives are a feature of every kitchen in the country and used daily by every perfectly innocent and benign housewife, there is no more chance of them being banned, than them banning the motor car.

Handguns were a very different proposition.

Solid response Martyn. And yes, I am probably worrying more than I should. Mind you, couldn't the law be changed making knife carrying illegal for anything other than transportation to / from the home? The press are having their usual field day and reporting every single misuse of knives. I yearn for the day when I get to see the headline 50 million knives used each day without incident.

I have fears! I worry! Please use your crystal ball and promise me that all shall be well

[Martyn]

Solid response Martyn. And yes, I am probably worrying more than I should. Mind you, couldn't the law be changed making knife carrying illegal for anything other than transportation to / from the home?

Yes they could, but what would be the point? It would impact on millions of people who legitimately and peacefully use knives ever day as part of thier work or hobby ...and to what end? Any mugger, yardie, hoodie, criminal or schhol kid just has to walk into the kitchen and take moms favourite Sabatier fillet knife to go do his dirty business. Fortunately, the logic of this is pretty undeniable to even the most dissinterested. Regardless of what you think of the British law sysytem, laws aren't passed that easily and any law that impacted so massively on the population would need to be the result of an overwhelming need, or theoretically demonstrate clear benefirts for society. The banning of knives does niether. It's clear another solution to knife crime must be found.

The press are having their usual field day and reporting every single misuse of knives. I yearn for the day when I get to see the headline 50 million knives used each day without incident.

I have fears! I worry! Please use your crystal ball and promise me that all shall be well

I very, very much doubt that any legislation will be passed that further restricts knife usage or ownership. The solution lies elsewhere. I would like to see much harsher penalties for the misuse of knives under the current laws - bang em up, ramp up the deterrant. That would be a sensible way forward and is far more likely to be the object of any change in law.

[Mantic]

I quite agree - a law which increases penalties for crimes involving knife use would be far better than trying to ban knives.

I just worry that one day, I'll have to cut a loaf of bread with a spoon. I've tried before and it really isn't all that easy

[directdrive]

Hi: To me, a pocket knife is a tool, period. The fact that it might be used as a weapon holds no water to me. My automobile, my umbrella, the pen in my shirt pocket, my fist or boot or any number of other things could just as easily be used for a weapon as a knife could be used. Granted, a sheath knife with a six inch blade can also be used as a tool but is generally seen as a weapon, either offensive or defensive. A pocket knife on the other hand, with a blade of 4 inches or less, especially one with more than a single blade, should be thought of as a tool. Someone mentioned the Leatherman "tool"....that's just what it is, a tool. The fact that it has knife blades does not, in my opinion, make it a weapon. Knives have gotten a bad rap because they are mis-used by scum. In turn, the rest of the people who use them responsibly, must suffer.
My thoughts on the matter.
Bruce

[Martyn]

The fact that it has knife blades does not, in my opinion, make it a weapon.

You are quite right. But the laws agrees with you as well. There are very few example in British law, of objects being classified explicitly as a weapon. In the vast majority of cases, a weapon is any object a person might use, to inflict damage on another.

Section 1 of the 1953 prevention of crime act, does not list any objects in it's definition of "weapon". It simply says...

..."offensive weapon" means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.

Any object can be described as a weapon, including a knife.

If you use a knife in a threatening manner, or carry one for self defense, you fall foul of the above law and the knife will be considered a weapon by law.

[Martyn]

If a police officer says...

...why are you carrying this swiss army knife?

and you reply

...to defend myself from muggers.

You have just confessed to a breach of section 1 of the 1953 prevention of crime act. The officer has just recieved a verbal confession from you that you are carrying the swiss army knife for the explicit intent of using it as a weapon, in the event you are attacked by a mugger. The officer can arrest you on the spot for carrying an offensive weapon and you will be charged and summarily convicted.

If a police officer says...

...why are you carrying this swiss army knife?

and you reply

...to sharpen my pencil.

You are gulty of nothing.

Context is everything!

[pteron]

Many excellent points made in this thread, and I'd like to add my thanks to Martyn for his educated and considered opinions.

Whilst we can agree that the Harris ruling was a low point in recent times, I go slightly further in that I'm concerned that the law has shifted from a burden of proof on the prosecution to that of the defendant. This, in my opinion, is a fundamentally bad idea. I do, however, appreciate that we are not going to change any laws, no matter how we rail against them, so effectively my position echoes Martyn's - work within the existing laws.

If you happen to have significant resources behind you, there is at least one level of the law untested (re Harris), but I'd recommend waiting for the climate to be rather more tolerent than it is currently.

[Martyn]

If you happen to have significant resources behind you, there is at least one level of the law untested (re Harris), but I'd recommend waiting for the climate to be rather more tolerent than it is currently.

Ahhh, sadly no (weren't you discussing something to do with this with Danzo ages ago?).

It has been tested through the court of appeal. Deegan v Regina - Deegan lost and the Harris ruling was upheld.

It even went to appeal in the Lords...

8. Appeal Committee—The 78th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made:

Regina v. Deegan (Petitioner)— That leave to appeal be refused.

I'm afraid the Harris ruling has now been tested in every court in the land and sadly, only an act of parliament can now overturn it (I doubt that will happen anytime soon).

I'm afraid all magistrates and crown court judges are now absolutely bound to view the Harris ruling as Law.

[gregorach]

For those wondering what the heck the Harris ruling is, it's the decision that a lock knife is equivalent to a fixed blade for legal purposes.

[Martyn]

Yes, sorry, quite right.

[pteron]

Ahhh, sadly no (weren't you discussing something to do with this with Danzo ages ago?).

Yes, we have discussed it but our conclusion is at odds with yours.

It has been tested through the court of appeal. Deegan v Regina - Deegan lost and the Harris ruling was upheld.

It even went to appeal in the Lords...

My understanding was that it didn't actually go to appeal in the Lords, the leave was refused. The appeal court did make a "point of general public importance"
which allowed the Lords to pick it up if they wanted to, but they didn't.

I'm afraid the Harris ruling has now been tested in every court in the land and sadly, only an act of parliament can now overturn it (I doubt that will happen anytime soon).

Are you saying that because leave to appeal to the Lords has been denied in one case it must be denied in subsequent cases? That is not my understanding of the law and it doesn't strike me as sensible.

I'm afraid all magistrates and crown court judges are now absolutely bound to view the Harris ruling as Law.

Yes agreed unless you have the resources to take it to the Lords.

Of course, these days, there are international courts to consider.

This is essentially an academic discussion, to all intents and purposes the law is set. We agree on that!

[risby]

Following on from Stovies "So how does it affect you" thread, I thought I would ask, what reasons would you give to a policeman for carrying your knife ?
I nearly always have a knife with me, usually my leatherman wave, but if I was suddenly stopped in a street and a knife was found on me, I may not be able to come up with a convincing reason for carrying my knife and may have it taken off me. I am the last sort of person to use a knife on another person, but I find having a knife always useful. So do you have any good reasons I could use....................Jon

Jon, just say "whittling". Make yourself some elaborate carving, say a figure of Mr Plod of Enid Blyton fame, affix it to the end of the lanyard on your knife or leatherman and then you can distract him from thoughts of weaponry by saying "See, I made that with this very tool" and looking innocently proud of yourself.

[Mantic]

Jon, just say "whittling". Make yourself some elaborate carving, say a figure of Mr Plod of Enid Blyton fame, affix it to the end of the lanyard on your knife or leatherman and then you can distract him from thoughts of weaponry by saying "See, I made that with this very tool" and looking innocently proud of yourself.

Without meaning to sound pompous, I'm glad that such a 'reason' will be seen as little more than a very poor excuse. Otherwise anyone with criminal intent wishing to 'tool up' could follow your suggestion.

The only way these laws protect us and indeed, our hobby, is by presenting us with the simple question - do you have a legitimate reason for carrying a knife?

What alternative would you prefer? "Anyone can carry a knife for any purpose"? Now THAT would see a dramatic change in the knife attack statistics....and not a good one either

If you have to make something up, you really shouldn't be carrying a knife. The UK 'knife laws' are more than reasonable and it's really not that difficult to follow them - it's the current political and media climate which is against us.

[Goose]

I think we all pretty much agree with the spirit of the law, the reasons for the laws being made are generally good.
I think what I (and most on here?) have the problem with is the letter of the law, and perception of the law by others, official or unofficial.

Just deleted a too long post that waffled a little, In short I worry that carrying out my business and doing no harm to any one, I could suddenly be arrested etc, because someone else has a different way of reading the law than us!

[pteron]

What alternative would you prefer? "Anyone can carry a knife for any purpose"? Now THAT would see a dramatic change in the knife attack statistics....and not a good one either

This is true now but it wasn't always so. When I was a lad we often took our penknives to school, we'd play (stupid) games with them and the thought of using them as weapons was furthest from our minds.

Unfortunately, society has changed. I feel an understanding of that change and its effects would lead us to far better methods of controlling knife crime than criminalising all knife carrying.

[risby]

Without meaning to sound pompous, I'm glad that such a 'reason' will be seen as little more than a very poor excuse. Otherwise anyone with criminal intent wishing to 'tool up' could follow your suggestion.

"Anyone can carry a knife for any purpose"? Now THAT would see a dramatic change in the knife attack statistics....and not a good one either

Well, yeah ... you may not mean to sound pompous but you do. You seem sure that liberalisation of the knife laws would see a change for the worse in knife attack statistics; I wonder why you think that, maybe you just see knives as weapons.

[Mantic]

Well, yeah ... you may not mean to sound pompous but you do. You seem sure that liberalisation of the knife laws would see a change for the worse in knife attack statistics; I wonder why you think that, maybe you just see knives as weapons.

LOL. If you're trying to get a rise out of me, I wouldn't bother.

If you're a frequent flyer with British Blades then should know that your previous comments re whittling as a reasonable reason, would get the thread closed and yourself on the not so happy list with the mods. BCUK has a tendency to follow that trend - and like it or not, it's probably the best policy. Suggesting that whittling is an acceptable reason is disinformation and something that we are obviously trying to avoid here. Would you rather the infomration that is provided here be accurate or not? If my comment was wrong then please, someone let me know and I'll retract it.

Anyone with a firm grasp on reality can see that taking away the knife laws as they stand today will certainly not reduce knife related crime. I would love to be able to carry a knife without having a reason - why should I be penalised for the wrongdoings of a minority? But I also have a grasp on reality and happily give up that freedom in order to have knife control as it stands today.

I'm not going to get into an argument over this so trying to bait me won't work.

Peace.

[Mantic]

This is true now but it wasn't always so. When I was a lad we often took our penknives to school, we'd play (stupid) games with them and the thought of using them as weapons was furthest from our minds.

Unfortunately, society has changed. I feel an understanding of that change and its effects would lead us to far better methods of controlling knife crime than criminalising all knife carrying.

Yup, I agree - I used to run around the village with a knife as a kid all the time (and an air pistol for that matter). The only harm that I ever caused was cutting myself Not with the air pistol of course

Society has changed with regards to its perception of knives and I think that we can blame a lot of that on the media. Going back to the way things were would be nice but is it possible?

[Martyn]

Jon, just say "whittling". Make yourself some elaborate carving, say a figure of Mr Plod of Enid Blyton fame, affix it to the end of the lanyard on your knife or leatherman and then you can distract him from thoughts of weaponry by saying "See, I made that with this very tool" and looking innocently proud of yourself.

The problem is, will a police officer think that is a solid and reasonable reason or will he think you are just making an excuse? You tell me? If someone said it to you what would you think? If someone said it to me, I would think it was a pretty thin excuse. If I was a police officer, I wouild immediately think, this fella is BS'ing me, I would arrest em and let the courts decide.

The reason for carrying the knife needs to be real, because everything else sounds like and excuse (because it is an excuse). The police are not stupid, they have heard them all before.

[bambodoggy]

Surely it also depends on the context....if you've got a frost carving fixed blade and you're sitting in a pile of fresh shavings then it has to be a valid reason.....doesn't it?

[Martyn]

My understanding was that it didn't actually go to appeal in the Lords, the leave was refused. The appeal court did make a "point of general public importance"
which allowed the Lords to pick it up if they wanted to, but they didn't.

Are you saying that because leave to appeal to the Lords has been denied in one case it must be denied in subsequent cases? That is not my understanding of the law and it doesn't strike me as sensible.

For the benefit of others reading this, the principle pteron and I are discussing is called stare decisis, Lat. "to stand by that which is decided". It's the principle which our legal system follows. It means that if a judge passes a ruling, then all judges and courts junior to him, are bound to follow that decision. However a senior judge or court can overturn that decision.

I think it was '93, that saw an entheusiastic lawyer convince a crown court judge that a locking knife should be considered a fixed blade in law. This was the Harris v DPP case and has became known as the Harris ruling. It means that all junior judges thereafter are bound by that decision (all Magistrates Courts and other Crown Courts). But at the time, a more senior judge could overturn it. In a later case, that ruling was indeed challenged. Deegan v Regina in the court of appeal ...a more senior court. The decision was upheld, which meant that all judges and courts junior to the court of appeal MUST abide by that ruling.

The court/judge hierarchy in the UK is like this (in order)...

Magistrates Court, Crown Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.

This means, according to the principle of stare decisis, that all Magistrates Courts, Crown Courts, High Courts and the Court of Appeal itself must recognise and abide by Deegan v Regina ruling (the same argument as Harris). So all of these courts MUST view a lock knife as a fixed blade.

pteron and I are not arguing this point.

What we are debating, is the next step. Deegan petitioned an appeal to the House of Lords, which was refused. It was my understanding that this meant stare decisis was then extended to include the Law lords, the highest court in the land before parliament. Pteron is saying that the case must be heard in the Lords and a ruling passed before stare decisis is extended to include them.

My thoughts ...I dont know the law that well. I'm a lay person with a keen interest because of my hobby, but no more. pteron has a professional interest and his word should be taken over mine.

pteron, can you provide some reference to clarify? I dont have access to the legal resources you do and while I dont doubt you are right, it's an important point I would like to be clear about. If stare decisis is applied simply for a refusal of a petition, then only parliament can change things. If not, then at least the Lords are still an option.

(it should be noted, that the Law Lords aren't the same as the House of Lords in Parliament, they are a group of uber-senior judges, called the Law Lords, dont confuse the two.)

...I also hear you regarding international courts.

For all intents and purposes though, whatever the answer to this question is, unless you have the will and financial clout to take your argument to the Lords(?) and possibly further, you are snookered.

[Martyn]

Surely it also depends on the context....if you've got a frost carving fixed blade and you're sitting in a pile of fresh shavings then it has to be a valid reason.....doesn't it?

Yes it does. Contest is everything. I was simply pointing out that using "whittling" as a universal excuse wont work ...unless you are in the woods, sitting on a pile of wood shavings ...actually whittling something. But then the excuse would be real, you would actually be whittling and the context would be apparent to everyone. It would be legal.

But the excuse wasnt presented in that context. It was offered as a "if you get stopped, just say this..." thing. The excuse would obviously be false and you would be breaking the law.

It's very, very, very difficult to get away from the simple principle of...

If you are doing something legitimate with a knife, then you have a legitimate reason for having one and you dont need to make up excuses. If you cant think of a good reason that is immediately apparent and truthfull to most people, then you simply dont have one and you should leave your knife at home.

[Mantic]

Thanks Martyn for clearing this up - I was aware of the Harris case but not to the depth which you have provided here.

I is learning I is

[Martyn]

Thanks Martyn for clearing this up - I was aware of the Harris case but not to the depth which you have provided here.

I is learning I is

You are welcome mantic.

I might sticky this thread, it's a bit argumentative in places, but there is some good info here.

[Mantic]

If you think anything I've said is flagrant then please feel free to remove it - I'd rather we kept to the facts as well.

[Martyn]

If you think anything I've said is flagrant then please feel free to remove it - I'd rather we kept to the facts as well.

Not at all, it's all pertinent.

People are passionate about the subject, that's understandable.

[Minotaur]

Ref The Harris Case

What does that actually mean?

A lock knife is classed as a fixed blade so does that mean carry is illegal or needs good reason.

I carry a Leatherman Charge with me at most times.

Wayland,

Just as a side point, would it not make sense to make enquires of your local police. I do this for a living and was hoping for your advice, espically under the current climate. They might advise a Land Rover gun box or just say to make sure you remove certain items from the van.

[Martyn]

Ref The Harris Case

What does that actually mean?

A lock knife is classed as a fixed blade so does that mean carry is illegal or needs good reason.

I carry a Leatherman Charge with me at most times.

Wayland,

Just as a side point, would it not make sense to make enquires of your local police. I do this for a living and was hoping for your advice, espically under the current climate. They might advise a Land Rover gun box or just say to make sure you remove certain items from the van.

The Leatherman Charge is illegal to carry in a public place, unless to have a good reason, ...because of the Harris ruling.

The nub of the Harris ruling, is simply that all lock knives and fixed blade knives are seen as one and the same thing in the eyes of the law.

Therefore, if you carry a Leatherman Charge in public and without good reason, you are guilty of a breach of Section 139 of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, which says the ONLY knife you can carry without a good reason, is a folding pocket knife, with a blade less than 3". ALL other knives, must be carried with a good and reasonable reason.

Exactly the same applies to an Opinel, if it is one of the models that has a locking ring (most of em).

Read the Law FAQ on BritishBlades.

Interestingly, when Deegan v Regina was reviewd by the judges from the Court of Appeal, they commented that the Harris ruling, was NOT actually in the spirit of the meaning of Section 139, which they agreed was never originally intended to include lock knives. Nevertheless, they overturned the appeal and the Harris ruling (and now the Deegan ruling) stands.

[Klenchblaize]

I note this is a resurrected thread from 2005 but I just have to say how superbly observed and reasoned I found Wayland's first post of last year. I do not believe he is being at all paranoid in his fears but rather a sobering reminder not to underestimate what seriously deep brown stuff we could all so easily find ourselves in through a moments forgetfulness or encounter with a person in authority with, to put it politely, an unhelpful agenda.

It is fine and indeed wholly correct to be upbeat and confident of ones ability to demonstrate a need to be in possession of a knife but do seriously think about those moments when you realise the last time you gutted a rabbit it was 05-00hrs and you still have it about your person as you stand at the checkout of your local supermarket at 17-00hrs.

As for my reason for “carrying a knife” I only wish it were possible to shout: BECAUSE I LIKE THEM.

Cheers!

[Mantic]

"BECAUSE I LIKE THEM"

Bump lol! How many of us feel like this I wonder?