Courts of Summary Jurisdiction

Published date01 April 1961
DOI10.1177/002201836102500201
Date01 April 1961
Subject MatterArticle
The
Journal
of
Criminal Law
VOL.
XXV. No. 2
Courts
of Summary Jurisdiction
OFFENSIVE
WEAPON:
USE OF A
POCKET-KNIFE
ON the 19th January 1961Jand K, two men from Jamaica,
appeared before
the
South Western Magistrates' Court
charged with being suspected persons loitering on
the
3rd
January at Old Town, Clapham, with intent to commit a
felony, contrary to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. K
was further charged for that he without lawful authority or
reasonable excuse had with him on this date in a public place
an offensive weapon, namely, a pocket-knife, contrary to
section Iof
the
Prevention of Crimes Act 1953.
Evidence was given by police officers to
the
effect
that
they had seen
the
two men loitering near unattended motor-
cars and trying
the
door handles.
The
defendants were
stopped and one police officer said,
"We
are police officers"
and produced his warrant card.
The
two men appeared most
surprised and were obviously uncertain about the identity of
the
police.
They
were asked what they were doing trying to
open door handles of parked cars. Ksaid,
"Why
should you
ask?"
The
police said they would be arrested for being
suspected persons loitering to steal from motor-cars. One of
the
officers took
K's
left arm and said, " Will you come with
me,"
whereupon Kproduced an open pocket-knife from his
right hand jacket pocket, thrust it towards
the
officer, saying,
"I
not come with you; you're a
Teddy
boy."
He
was pre-
vented from doing injury
but
said,
"If
you
don't
let me go
I'll
stab you with this." However, he dropped
the
knife and ran
off with
the
other man.
They
were subsequently caught, taken
to
the
police station and charged with
the
offences.
In
the
possession of Kwas some food including a
tin
of herrings.
In
his evidence Ksaid
that
he
put
the knife in his pocket
to eat his food with and to open
the
tin
of herrings.
He
denied loitering around unattended motor-cars or touching
81
JCL-l
82
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL
LAW
car door handles. A car, he said, drew
up
alongside
him
and
his friend
and
two men in plain clothes got out.
They
did not
look like police officers.
One
showed him amaroon coloured
book the size of a diary
but
he could see no printing on it.
He thought they were
Teddy
boys trying to force him and his
friend into
the
car and he was afraid of being beaten up.
He said
that
it was not until
the
officer asked him what he had
got in his pockets
that
he pulled out the knife and the tin of
herrings.
There
was also a denial of
the
use of
the
alleged
threats.
The
magistrate,
Mr.
A. H. Glenn Craske, said that in his
view there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendants
of being suspected persons and they were consequently
acquitted of that offence.
On
the charge against Kof possess-
ing an offensive weapon the magistrate said he found
the
facts
about the knife as stated in evidence by the police officers.
He also found as a fact that when Kleft his home with
the
pocket-knife he had it lawfully without intention to use it for
an unlawful purpose, that is to say at that time he had no
thought of using it to cause injury to anyone. He undoubtedly
threatened the officer with it and said,
"If
you
don't
let me
go I'll stab you with
it,"
but
the
magistrate believed Kwhen
he said he
didn't
think that the
men
who approached them
were police officers
but
thought they were
Teddy
boys who
wanted to treat them rough.
The
question to which the
magistrate had to direct himself was whether Khad with him
an "offensive weapon". Section 1(4) of
the
Prevention of
Crimes Act 1953 defines "offensive weapon" as 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.
Two
cases were cited.
The
first was R. v. Jura (1954
1Q.B. 503) in which the appellant while using an air rifle at a
shooting gallery in a public park, in a moment of anger,
turned
the
rifle towards awoman companion and fired at
her
causing her injury.
It
was held that, in the circumstances, it
was not the possession
but
the use of the rifle which was
unlawful and, although the appellant might have been con-
victed of a felony
under
the Offences against the Person Act,
1861, he had committed no offence against the Act of 1953.
Lord
Goddard
drew attention to the long title of the 1953
Act,
"An
Act to prohibit
the
carrying of offensive weapons in
public places without lawful authority or reasonable excuse."

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT