Not neccessarily that they didn't recognize the axe was a potentially more dangerous weapon; it's also possible that they thought he had a more justifiable reason for said axe. At any rate that's likely what they'll argue. Not saying that it's neccessarily true but that it IS an argueable point. Just having good reason isn't enough in a court; you also have to be able to articulate it convincingly enough to sway a judge over the opposing side's arguements. The police are practiced at this. That's another reason a solicitor is a must.
No they recognised none of the things he carried was a weapon this has nothing to do with Weapon if it did it would be a different law S139 is not for weapons And he would have been in the back of a car and in a cell
I get the general impression from this thread that folk are trying to interprete a law to suit their own point of view. The current knife laws in the UK clearly state that it is illegal to carry a fixed blade knife or a folding knife with a blade over 3" long without having a good reason for doing so. Now that good reason is for the intervening police officer(s) to decide, not the person who is carrying the knife. It is the luck of the draw whether or not the officer in question interpretes the knife law liberally or strictly, as the 'good reasons' for carrying a knife are limited & there is only a small leeway for maneuver which can be left to the discretion of the police officer. Had the OP come across a different policeman, particularly one that practiced outdoor activities, then the encounter may well have ended on a more positive note. If you feel you have been wronged then you can always have your day in court but then it would be up to a magistrate to decide & the outcome will be dependant on how he/she interpretes the law. The OP's solictor, who presumably has some knowledge of the knife law, didn't think that he would win in a court case, which indicates, does it not, that the officers in question, were acting within the law.
I rest my case m'ludd.
No they do not state that
they State
(1)Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, any person who has an article to which this section applies with him in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.
(3)This section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3inches.
(4)It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.
(5)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him
(a)for use at work;
(b)for religious reasons; or
(c)as part of any national costume.
the Axe Spoon knife and Knife all comply with the criteria that this section applies to
the only exemption is for a type of knife (the only mention of knife in the section) ie a sect(2)
folding pocket knife &(3)[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
cutting edge under 3" which he wasn't carrying[/FONT]
so all 3 items axe, spoon knife, knife need good reason which he gave And they accepted however they seemed to only accept the reason for the axe and spoon knife this a lawyer should be able to show should have been either all was foul of S139 or none
to be honest taking them to a mates house to show him is good enough reason
Basically the media putting pressure on the Gov putting pressure on the police causing the Chief constable to force Knives to be looked upon as bad at all opportunity has clouded the officer on the street
knowing that people wont risk pushing back and knives have a bad press so unlikely to get any public support or
unfortunately once you accept that the officers version of the law is correct and accept his justice your screwed
the only way is to refuse the warning get carted off to the station refuse again to the desk Sgt and continue till you get to court in some month time
at all times they will say if you accept our law you can go home it will cost you a lot of money if you push this and you will end up worse off
i.e.
(6)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable-
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years, or a fine, or both.
so its not easy to get fair justice in UK in this case