He had it coming..

[stonepark]

Never accept a caution from the police as it gives you a criminal record. Always insist on the presence of a solicitor and refuse to talk until then, a few hours waiting is much better than a lifetime of a criminal record.

Most of the time, the caution issue will not reach court as charges will be dropped (75%} as your solicitor makes it clear your argument to prosecutors.

If you end up in court your reasonable argument will normally get you off if solicitor is competent (20%)

If it does end up in court and if you are found guilty, for something such as this you would get a fine and then also have a criminal record. (5%).

You can only use tools offensively, carrying them alone is not offensive.

He had a good reason (going to and from allotment).

Whether they are in your belt, a bag ,your car makes no difference to the "offense", however as he was not brandishing then in an "offensive" manner, they were not offensive weapons.

This was clearly a good example of police malpractice.

 

[Wildgoose]

I think one of the issues is that we only hear half the story in most of these cases.

The police release a party line that is factual and doesn’t breach anyone’s data rights.

I’d wager that there is more to this incident. Why would they ask if he told people he was in the army? Strange line of questioning on the account given by him.

 

[Chris]

I think one of the issues is that we only hear half the story in most of these cases.

The police release a party line that is factual and doesn’t breach anyone’s data rights.

I’d wager that there is more to this incident. Why would they ask if he told people he was in the army? Strange line of questioning on the account given by him.

To the latter point, they may have been trying to find out if he was a delusional ‘Rambo’ type, which could be a fair line of questioning if he was wearing military equipment. Such people are probably more common in the day-to-day of the police.

 

[Herman30]

Why would they ask if he told people he was in the army?

Because he wore an army belt? Pehaps?

 

[Wildgoose]

That might account for the question “were you in the army?” But specifically they asked “do you tell people you were in the army” which sounds more like it’s founded in someone’s account.

Someone phoned police after all, unlikely an armed unit were just out and about looking in gardens.

Hopefully he appeals and gets his tools back and is happy.

 

[Pattree]

I am one of the vast majority of us who have no experience of being questioned by the police in public, never mind having my car or myself searched and I do not anticipate it ever happening.

Edited to add for veracity:
Stopped for speeding and a blown tail light

I do have a couple of acquaintance who have been prosecuted for transporting (Not wearing) quite small knives for religious purposes.

They went to court (one of them was a barrister) and were acquitted.

If it happens to you: ask the court for the return of your edged tool that day. One of my examples waited months before the knife was returned. The other never did get it back.

In this particular case, I have to agree with the OP title. The legal background and attitude to carrying knives in this country is very well known. As described, the action could be regarded as provocative. Why weren’t the tools in the bottom of the trug? We wouldn’t be wasing electrons discussing a fool.

 

[Chris]

That might account for the question “were you in the army?” But specifically they asked “do you tell people you were in the army” which sounds more like it’s founded in someone’s account.

Someone phoned police after all, unlikely an armed unit were just out and about looking in gardens.

Hopefully he appeals and gets his tools back and is happy.

I wonder if this is a psychological profile sort of thing they do to ascertain whether someone's a bit of a nutter.

"Were you in the Army?"
No

"Do you tell people you were in the Army?"
Yes

If the above answers are given (seemingly not in this case), it might contribute to the profile of someone who's perhaps psychologically unstable, or someone who wants to go around dressed in military gear with 'weapons' to give off a certain image, which could then be used as evidence that they were likely to intentionally be displaying a knife/sharp tool as part of that image they're trying to project.

This is entirely speculation on my part though.

 

[Falstaff]

I disagree with Stonepark only on whether it was police malpractice.
Whilst I share that lack of trust in the police, I think that this time they got it right. You send an armed unit to a potentially armed incident, and you don't mess around giving them chance to react negatively. You do an outline mental check at the station to try to assess the risk/threat level, refer it further up for support/decision, then act on that decision.
I'm pretty sure they recognised he was a non-threat muppet fairly soon, and did not want to waste resources and police time on a prosecution. Whilst possibly the duty solicitor was busy, equally they might have already decided not to charge but needed to impress on him his stupidity. Not calling the solicitor ensures they could not be later obliged to press charges, and would have given him a warning and let him go. However, he clearly even now is arguing the toss.
He stupidly agreed to a Caution, never do that, so now he effectively has a record that will be used against him if there is another incident.
In the Sarah Everard protest they were told by someone to break it up, and used the same tactic, plus some "secret" minor prosecutions of those who were not likely to back down.
Now, should they need a search warrant or other excuse, "they got form/record etc,etc sir" and the authorising person (be they judge or Magistrate), rarely ask for more details, just trust and sign it off.
This lack of checking was how so many thousands were disconnected by the Gas boards.

 

[Laurentius]

I googled the hori hori and in the address window where I typed the search the first option that came up after typing the first Hori was "hori hori knife". So if Google thinks it is a knife I can easily understand the less educated (such as nervous passerby or target pressured copper might think that too.

If it is sharp and/or could be seen as a offensive weapon you pack it away when carrying it down the street. I do not think reasonable use is enough these days.

Also coppers are generally less bent than say the 60s but I do think they are more stupid or ignorant than back in the day. Just a feeling BTW.

I also think some people are plain dumb too. I think a caution is a fair punishment for stupidity but I do think those coppers are corrupt for the way they went for a caution under those circumstances. What with not evidence of cause for offensive weapon I suspect but above all caution without representation of a solicitor is pretty poor practise and needs some form of reeducation (used to be in the form of a dressing down and perhaps metaphorical boot up the bottom from a senior officer).

So IMHO things were done totally wrong by all. Stupid guy carrying potentially offensive weapons in an easily accessible and obvious way. Police stitching him up without a solicitor. I think the caution should not have happened without representation. I also suspect he will have a hard time quashing it too. Not based on knowledge or experience just a hnch.

I do have some experience with the police and autism in that I was part of a team assisting the Nottinghamshire Police with their enquiries when they were setting up their new custody suite and procedures. During one of our meetings we had pizza delivered, nobody blinked an eyelid when I pulled out my SAK to cut slices. Fact is if they suspected the guy was autistic (he wasn't) never mind a duty solicitor he should have been provided with an appropriate adult and I daresay if he wanted to push it he could get the caution overturned because they were not following best procedure, but he was a fool to accept it in the first place.

 

[Aristotle]

Don't carry a bladed tool on your belt or in your hand whilst walking through (sub)urban areas where you are not immediately using the tool, even if you have a good reason to be transporting it, and will not have any problems from concerned members of the public.

It is fairly obvious.

 

[Keith_Beef]

I have just looked at the photo, the shirt looks quite hippy, but below the waist he does look a little bit tacticool. Just looked at the Hori Hori on line (I am probably a terrorist for doing that) and I would be miffed if the cops took it from me considering the price of the thing. However it does look like the Fairbairn Sykes gardening trowel doesn't it and could easily be used as an offensive weapon.

Arrested for wearing a loud shirt in a built up area and for having eyes too close together.

 

[Keith_Beef]

he was a fool to accept [a caution] in the first place

Is there not a requirement for the police to explain to a fool in custody the consequences of accepting a caution?

Apparently it is now a criminal offence to be a fool.

When will the Met charter a fleet of coaches and descend on Westminster?

 

[Herman30]

Is there not a requirement for the police to explain to a fool in custody the consequences of accepting a caution?

Sure I do not know UK juristiction but to me caution sound same as police saying "you´ve been a naughty boy, don´t do that again" while giving a gentle grip on the ear.
But from writings here I understand it is substantionally more severe?

 

[Chris]

Sure I do not know UK juristiction but to me caution sound same as police saying "you´ve been a naughty boy, don´t do that again" while giving a gentle grip on the ear.
But from writings here I understand it is substantionally more severe?

Yeah, a police caution is admitting to guilt and it goes on your criminal record. Your interpretation isn’t uncommon, and people even over here say things like “He got off with only a caution” which isn’t really getting off at all.

 

[Laurentius]

I suppose, being a lay person in such matters, that a case could be made out that openly carrying a blade even if you have a lawful reason, could be interpreted as flaunting it in an intimidating or threatening way. Once again it is all down to the persons manner when they are confronted.

 

[Falstaff]

Oh Wow, the CPS site and the Act itself make interesting reading.
If this muppet tries to do it again having had a Caution, this counts as a guilty plea, and makes him liable to a Mandatory Minimum Sentence for a second offence.

Also, just having it on your person is an offence, you don't have to wave it around or use it as a threat (@stonepark - please note, I thought you were right, but the Act &CPS is quite clear.)
There are though, the specified defences allowing it to be carried.

However, "Hidden" blades disguised as say a pen, count as an offensive weapon, irrespective of size or intent, as do ceramic blades. The 3 defences are allowed for ceramic kitchen knives, but not for hidden/secret blades.

 

[Keith_Beef]

Oh Wow, the CPS site and the Act itself make interesting reading.
If this muppet tries to do it again having had a Caution, this counts as a guilty plea, and makes him liable to a Mandatory Minimum Sentence for a second offence.

Also, just having it on your person is an offence, you don't have to wave it around or use it as a threat (@stonepark - please note, I thought you were right, but the Act &CPS is quite clear.)
There are though, the specified defences allowing it to be carried.

However, "Hidden" blades disguised as say a pen, count as an offensive weapon, irrespective of size or intent, as do ceramic blades. The 3 defences are allowed for ceramic kitchen knives, but not for hidden/secret blades.

So a particularly obtuse or vindictive official could decide that a hori hori is a blade disguised as a trowel and is therefore an offensive weapon... Great.

Except that the cutting edge on a hori hori is not hidden and it not disguised as anything else; to repeat the letter of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, a hori hori does not have "a concealed blade or concealed sharp point and is designed to appear to be an everyday object of a kind commonly carried on the person".

 

[Silverclaws2]

So a particularly obtuse or vindictive official could decide that a hori hori is a blade disguised as a trowel and is therefore an offensive weapon... Great.

Except that the cutting edge on a hori hori is not hidden and it not disguised as anything else; to repeat the letter of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, a hori hori does not have "a concealed blade or concealed sharp point and is designed to appear to be an everyday object of a kind commonly carried on the person".

A bladed article.........

\what is a blade ?

 

[Falstaff]

I think the answer to that is yes, they could. They might consider it as a Knife exceeding 3 inches, as distinct from a hidden or intended to harm blade (i.e an Offensive weapon), in which case the 3 justifiable defences are possible. The CPS would then have to apply the 2 tests - likelihood of conviction bearing in mind the potential defence, and public interest.

In most cases the CPS tests are a fairly high bar, but no certainty. Again depends upon circumstances, and possibly political influence.
There is no mention of having to be a sharp blade, I think intentionally, to cover sale/importation by traders. All trowels have a blade, and could do a lot of harm, even if blunt. There might be some case law to refer to re blade definition, but otherwise it'll probably fall to what is common parlance for the object in question.

 

[Chris]

A hori hori isn't a 'hidden' blade and I would be astonished if the police ever claimed as such. Those laws are specifically to address things like belt buckle knives, or walking sticks with swords hidden in them.

It is by default an offence to carry in a public place a bladed article of any kind other than a folding pocket knife, section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act.: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/139

There are some statutory defences to this for someone carrying them with 'good reason'.

So by default he was committing an offence, which means the police can arrest him, backed in this instance I am sure by the fact it was reported to them and they didn't just drive past and spot him pruning some bushes. His defence would be the 'good reason' defence, which a solicitor would've advised him on and he should not have accepted the caution.

Niwaki themselves define the Hori Hori as being a blade: https://www.niwaki.com/hori-hori/#P00442-7