In the Scottish Courts
| Published date | 01 April 1960 |
| Date | 01 April 1960 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836002400205 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Scottish Courts
OFFENSIVE
WEAPON
Farrell v. Rennicks (1959
S.L.T.
(Sh. Ct.)
71)
ONE is familiar with those multi-purpose tools which
embrace a
number
of articles
anyone
of which can be
fitted on to
the
handle, e.g. knife blade, tin-opener, screw-
driver, bottle opener, etc.
One's
first reaction to such an
implement is
that
it can easily and properly be described as an
offensive weapon.
The
short point, in this particular case,
however, was whether such a knife was an offensive weapon.
Rennicks, in whose possession
the
knife, or implement, was
found, admitted acharge of housebreaking and in reply to a
further charge laid
under
s. Iof the Prevention of Crime Act
1953tabled the defence
that
the implementwas intended for use
in connection with housebreaking. After atrial the Sheriff
found
the
charge against Rennicks
not
proven. He pointed
out
that
for
the
purpose of
the
Act, offensive weapon was
defined as an 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.
The
Crown conceded
that
they
could
not
argue
that
this particular knife was made or adapted
for use for causing injury to a person.
They
did, however,
argue
that
it was intended by Rennicks for such use.
The
Sheriff refused to accept this latter argument.
He
said that there was no evidence of such use or any indication of
any intention for such use. Rennicks gave an explanation of
his possession of it, and while his explanation was not sup-
ported in full by the evidence he produced, the Sheriff gave
him the benefit of the doubt he had
that
it was intended for
use as an offensive weapon against any person.
This
serves as a useful reminder that mere possession of
an " offensive
weapon"
is not necessarily sufficient to justify
conviction.
There
must
be something more.
126
To continue reading
Request your trial