Learnt a bad lesson today

[Scots_Charles_River]

I think you should just forget it. Even if it costs lots for the knife. I would not risk any type of record or the Police having a note of your name, it's slippery slope. I know most forum users will disagree with me. However, in my line of work it could ruin a career.

 

[xylaria]

I think you should just forget it. Even if it costs lots for the knife. I would not risk any type of record or the Police having a note of your name, it's slippery slope. I know most forum users will disagree with me. However, in my line of work it could ruin a career.

good point. Although we can all see an injustice, we are not the OP. We dont have to deal with consequences. For 15 years I held down jobs where the lack of police records on you is what kept you in that job. I am not talking criminal records, i am talking the files they had on the wierd housemate you had in uni type records. One day ten years ago I turned whistle blower, and the system turned. I walked out of that job for myown safety, I couldn't get that type of job again, hey i couldn't get any type of job for good while. Anyway now I am free to fight for what ever comes my way, most people cant fight. To get black listed from jobs is too much a price to carry a knife. We know we have a right to carry tools, until someone in my postion is stopped police wont know where the line the line should be drawn.

 

[santaman2000]

....."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."
Well, no, I wouldn't come to that conclusion necessarily! Rather I would say that the solicitor was fairly experienced in how his local courst viewed things which might not be the same as in other places. That's normal and to be expected but does not mean that the officers were acting withn the law per see.......

Well, considering that what the courts decide IS 'case law' that kinda does mean they were acting within the law. If indeed thet is how the courts have ruled.

 

[boatman]

The courts that matter have not so ruled, that is courts that establish a precedent which was apparently the case with locking folders. Parliament has decided that a fixed blade knife carried with a good reason IS legal. That is the law. They also have given guidelines as to what is a good reason, something that the confiscating officer was either ignorant of or chose to ignore. It could not be plainer or more annoying and depressing especially to have people apparently happy to give up on what is right in favour of what is expedient.

 

[Corso]

Well, considering that what the courts decide IS 'case law' that kinda does mean they were acting within the law. If indeed thet is how the courts have ruled.

It's not quite how it works over here, courts may set a presidence over specifics within the letter of the law (i.e clarify an interpritation) they do not change the law.

good reason has never been defined as a specific - infact you are only expected to prove YOU believe YOU have good reason (and that a judge/jury agrees) not that a police officer, desk sergent cps etc. does so.

The way they get you is to scear you into believing the odds are stacked agaist you and that the easy was out is to give in to the authority that challenges you - the OP did just that by handing over the knife

of course i'm happy for someone to quote case lore and prove me wrong....

 

[Corso]

It's not quite how it works over here, courts may set a presidence over specifics within the letter of the law (i.e clarify an interpritation) they do not change the law.

good reason has never been defined as a specific - infact you are only expected to prove YOU believe YOU have good reason (and that a judge/jury agrees) not that a police officer, desk sergent cps etc. does so.

The way they get you is to scear you into believing the odds are stacked agaist you and that the easy was out is to give in to the authority that challenges you - the OP did just that by handing over the knife

of course i'm happy for someone to quote case lore and prove me wrong....

let me put it another way mr policeman says what you have in your bag is agaist the law, you frown and hand it over and thereby you accept his is correct. i.e you accept you've broken said law[/U], youve handed in your 'innocent until proven guilty' etc. rights its excatly the same as getting caution but without the paperwork.

the irony is you've done so without legal council and probably done them a favour 'cause they can add it to the evil knife stats and have made this work a safer place.

 

[boatman]

The difficulty is that if he searches the bag and takes it you have a problem trying to grab it back whatever your legal position.

 

[FGYT]

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 3”inches.​

​

​

(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

 

[santaman2000]

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 think you may have misread my post you quoted; we're actually agreeing here.

 

[santaman2000]

It's not quite how it works over here, courts may set a presidence over specifics within the letter of the law (i.e clarify an interpritation) they do not change the law....

They can't "change" the law here either. What they can do is pretty much the same as you're describing.

 

[santaman2000]

The courts that matter have not so ruled....

This on the other hand might be different than over here. ALL courts matter with respect to precedents (and there may be conflicting precedents)

Let me try to explain in a way that makes sense. Imagine a case going to the lowest court; in Florida that would be a County Court. That case comes uo in Okaloosa county and even at that low level, the judge's decision sets a precendent. BUT. Only a precedent for future decisions in Okaloose county; they wouldn't be binding on neighboring counties or on a higher court.

On the other hand, once a case goes to the next higher level (in Florida that would be District Court) they can ignore all precedents from lower courts or from neighboring Districts. Once they reach they're decision, it will either uphold or overturn all previous presedents from lower courts. And so on up the chain until a decision (precedent) is made by the Florida Supreme Court which in turn might be overturned by the lowest Federal Court (the US District Court) starting the whole thing over on a Federal level.

Of course well over 99% of all cases never get past the first level of court they're tried in.

 

[Corso]

fair enough but what I'm trying to say is theres been to case law regarding set defined legitamate reasons that you can carry a fixed blade and never will be. the only case law being quoted reffers to the definition that a lock knife not being readily foldable excludes it from being a folding knife.

has absoulutly nothing to do with fixed blades and legitamacy, neither are the police judge and jury even if they do a good job persuading you they are

 

[blacktimberwolf]

It could not be plainer or more annoying and depressing especially to have people apparently happy to give up on what is right in favour of what is expedient.

I don't think anyone is 'happy ' to give up what is rightfully theirs. In a case like the OP's, you have two choices, either let the police confiscate the knife which they believe is being carried without 'good reason' or fight it out in court to prove you were in the right. Unless you're loaded & have an army of lawyers working for you, spending hundreds, if not thousands of pounds in a court battle with no guarantee of winning is beyond many people's resources. Sleepless nights & days off work aren't a pleasant prospect for most folk either.............there is nothing 'expedient' in OP's decision to let it go. You have to weigh up the pros & cons .
It's all very well people on a forum telling others they should stand up & defend their rights, regardless of the consequences but how many of them would actually practice what they preached should they ever find themselves in a similar situation.?

 

[Joonsy]

I don't think anyone is 'happy ' to give up what is rightfully theirs. In a case like the OP's, you have two choices, either let the police confiscate the knife which they believe is being carried without 'good reason' or fight it out in court to prove you were in the right. Unless you're loaded & have an army of lawyers working for you, spending hundreds, if not thousands of pounds in a court battle with no guarantee of winning is beyond many people's resources. Sleepless nights & days off work aren't a pleasant prospect for most folk either.............there is nothing 'expedient' in OP's decision to let it go. You have to weigh up the pros & cons .
It's all very well people on a forum telling others they should stand up & defend their rights, regardless of the consequences but how many of them would actually practice what they preached should they ever find themselves in a similar situation.?

this is why true justice is only really accessible to wealthy people because your day in court is financially beyond the reach of many, and the proposed changes in Legal Aid should be of very great concern to everyone.

 

[Ivan...]

Oh I WASN'T GUNNA, BUT! I am in the middle of a court case, it has cost me £380.00 so far(not a great deal to some) Anyway i have won, and my brief has asked the other party to pay the cost's, but did say i was probably more likely to get one of those Richard Branson tickets to space!

And anyone hoping to get Legal Aid now, forget it, the rules changed halfway through my case.

I know principal, can be a very strong emotion, but if you are not careful, you will be like the compulsive gambler,chasing good money after bad!

As said before, good luck whichever path you choose.

Just wondering, would you feel the same, about a £10 Mora?

Ivan...

 

[Mesquite]

Just wondering, would you feel the same, about a £10 Mora?

If it involved me being given a warning or caution for something I know I was legally entitled to do then yes... I would fight it because it could cause so much damage job wise.

Remember all an employer will see if a CRB check was done is that the OP received a warning for the carrying of a knife in a public area on such and such a date. They won't see the circumstances which lead to the warning being issued, just the offence and that sadly can be enough to put them off employing the person.

 

[boatman]

Isn't the frustration not so much an incorrect decision made at the time by a possibly pressurised or ignorant officer but that the next step did not call a halt, examine the circumstances and reverse the wrong? Instead he got the sort of establishment reply we have all had from various organisations but which seem automatic from the police.

Example. children playing with legal toy guns in the street are taken into custody after hysterical call from a member of the public. Inspector then says something like, "We have to treat possible firearms offences seriously" instead of saying something like, "Oops! We over-reacted". Never, never do we get that but always some sort of double-speak justification.

 

[Bushwhacker]

It's nothing to do with class or how much money you've got. It's whether you're a strong character, free thinking and got a bit of tenacity in you. That's something money can't buy.

 

[Joonsy]

It's nothing to do with class or how much money you've got. It's whether you're a strong character, free thinking and got a bit of tenacity in you. That's something money can't buy.

and a favourable verdict of your case is helped enormously by very expensive barristers if you can afford them , i doubt it was tenacity that produced a not guilty verdict for murder for OJ Simpson but suspect it was because of the work of his very expensive legal team.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

It's whether you're a strong character, free thinking and got a bit of tenacity in you. That's something money can't buy.

All that ain't worth a hill of beans if you don't have the where with all to pay the costs................................money on the other hand, can buy you someone who does have those qualities, should you be lacking, to do ya biddin'.