Someone has been done for carry Zombie knives.

[Herman30]

If I were to be criminal (I´m not of course) then with this knife (sharp as a surgeons scalpel) I would do more harm in a second than some twats with a comical survival/zombie knife. Flick of the wrist and throat is cut. Point is, you don´t need big knives.

 

[Paul_B]

Not sure who that's aimed at, I don't think anyone has criticised the police or suggested anything other than a pair of Qidiots getting what they deserve?

Not aimed at anyone just making the point again that this is a story about suspicious people who were found to be in the process of committing an offence for which they were arrested. There was no issue with current state of knife law as they'd be arrested for carrying drugs and such knives under previous knife law regimes.

This story has allowed ppl to have another bite at the current knife laws but this story is about two men behaving suspiciously in a high crime area. About a legitimate stop and search that turned up criminal activity. I don't see how complaining about zombie knife descriptions in the newer sections of knife legislation is even relevant. Since the facts in the article did not mention zombie knives only the sensation seeking, click bait journo writing the BBC article.

To me there's a bit of shoehorning in a excuse to raise the knife law issues people have. There must be better stories to raise this on the back of than the arrest of two scumbag criminals from Sunderland? If not then it weakens the argument a bit surely?

 

[nigelp]

The BBC used the word zombie knives not the police.

The police probably issued a press release to highlight the work they were doing to prevent knife crime and the BBC just reported it? The police will have a media and PR team that send out press releases and the like.

 

[Paul_B]

If I was a criminal I'd use an easily obtainable gun or dangerous dog. One will get you arrested but the other a fine providing it couldn't be confirmed as a banned breed and you weren't caught out actively setting the dog on your victim.

As a self defence instructor once told me, don't use a knife unless you know how to use it. If you don't it'll more likely be used against you. A gun is more of a leveller.

 

[Jared]

It does seem Northumbria Police called them zombie knives.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1725172917002993874

 

[Laurentius]

I do think it was a fair cop guv'nor as they had no good reason to be carrying those knives and never mind that all knives in the wrong hands can inflict a lot of damage, they are the sort of blades idiots might carry to look intimidating and big themselves up that they are some kind of urban commando. The description is the usual nonsense of course but it is those kinds of blades and the nefarious people who carry them that are causing the rest of us such grief over legislation. I shall stick to an axe I think, you can't call that a zombie knife and it is just as good for despatching them.

 

[haptalaon]

One good thing to do is to learn the law around stop and search.

The police have to follow particular rules of procedure, but they also rely on members of the public not knowing that and being either polite or intimidated.

The key part:

The law says that you can only be searched if a police officer has a reasonable belief to suspect that you may be carrying something illegal or something that can be used to to commit an offence and you are likely to do so.​

​

Police officers must specify before the search who they are and where they are from, what they are looking for, why they suspect you, and search only in places that they might find the items.​

For example, 'we recieved a report of a man wearing a bushcraft hat and camo trousers in this area, holding a big woodman's knife' it's a lawful search because they reasonably suspect you could be that person.

But it would not be lawful of them to look in your wallet to find out your name, because a knife will not be in your wallet.

Or for them to look at you, see you're wearing camo/look like a hippy and search you because You Look Like The Type Who Might Have Weed Or A Knife

Before any search, you should be told:

• The officer’s name and the police station they are attached to
• That you are entitled to a receipt of the search
• The law under which they are searching you and what they are searching for
• The grounds to suspect you, or that a blanket search power has been granted and what it is (this often happens at big protests, for example)

If a police officer does NOT tell you those things - ask:

• Am I being detained?
• Under what power?
• What are you searching for?
• What are your grounds to suspect me?

and it's good practice to take a mental note of the officer's number as well, often on a shouder, and to avoid any kind of chit chat - say 'no comment' to everything. If a friend is there, they can film the interaction, which police do not like but nevertheless gives you a record of the encounter. If they break procedure, you can follow it up with Netpol.

Part of living in a democratic society is that we have rights, and it's up to us to participate in that process by ensuring the police do their jobs right. As well as avoiding self-incriminating and unecessary trouble when we're just doing a harmless hobby.

 

[haptalaon]

OK a bit of realism here. Two guys acting suspiciously with their faces covered in an urban area. There were reports, plural, of two men with covered faces acting suspiciously. The police stopped and searched them as is their job. They found knives and drugs. The guys got arrested for knife possession. The BBC used the word zombie knives not the police.

So in this example, this was probably a lawful search - "we had reports of two young people matching your description acting suspiciously and we have reason to believe you might be carrying a knife"

But if you're hiking through a little village causing no trouble to anyone, and you bump into some bored plods who want something in their arrest record, they almost certainly will not have the right to search you.

 

[Pattree]

……… and are extremely unlikely to do so.

 

[Wildgoose]

Whilst we could debate the officers reasonable grounds, legal powers and how bored they were all night it’s fair to say they got it right didn’t they?

Two people with Fixed blades, faces covered and seemingly up to no good.

If they were out for a hike I’m sure they will bring it up at court.

 

[Paul_B]

It does seem Northumbria Police called them zombie knives.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1725172917002993874

Aah! The BBC article didn't make that clear. Ignore my comments about the zombie knife elements but the bit about stop and search, previous knife laws would apply. If you're being suspicious, face covered and meeting enough criteria for a stop and no valid reason to carry large fixed blade knives then fair game to have them confiscated at the minimum and further charges of there's other criminal activities involved.

I do think the serrated edges that might fit zombie knife features isn't the main detail with this story. Blade length and activities prior to stop and search are probably the key points.

Although I must admit to not liking the knives seized. Not a fan on serrated cutting blades on knives used out and about and certainly not on the spine. Not really clear what use the ones on the spine are really. To me they don't seem very good knives.

 

[Laurentius]

So in this example, this was probably a lawful search - "we had reports of two young people matching your description acting suspiciously and we have reason to believe you might be carrying a knife"

But if you're hiking through a little village causing no trouble to anyone, and you bump into some bored plods who want something in their arrest record, they almost certainly will not have the right to search you.

The statistical chances of being stopped and searched out in the sticks are infinitessimal.

 

[Wildgoose]

So in this example, this was probably a lawful search - "we had reports of two young people matching your description acting suspiciously and we have reason to believe you might be carrying a knife"

But if you're hiking through a little village causing no trouble to anyone, and you bump into some bored plods who want something in their arrest record, they almost certainly will not have the right to search you.

It is probably worth remembering that for the offence of carrying an offensive weapon the burden of proof lies with the person carrying it that you have a good reason.
Police only have to show that you had it.

Saying nothing if you were challenged may not assist you in this instance

 

[Pattree]

It’s a strange law isn’t it?
Regarding carrying knives (as opposed to also carrying drugs and being known/reported to the police):
At the point of confiscation/arrest no crime has been committed. The arresting officer is of the opinion that you cannot justify carrying the knife while you are of the opinion that you can.

Even when you get to court, no crime has been committed.

Only at the point of verdict is it finally established that there was any crime to answer in the first place.

In the case of theft, assault, speeding etc at least there was an offence committed before the arrest.

If anyone should have a knife confiscated and subsequently be acquitted: it is well worth asking the magistrate if you can take the knife home. Taking a lockable box might help this decision.
Tools carried as a part of a belief or religion are permitted under some circumstances. It often takes those acquitted many months to get their tools back and they have been lost permanently. Even a barrister who had her knife wrapped in a cloak in a bag didn’t get her knife back for several months.

 

[Wildgoose]

It is a strange concept.
In essence possession of the item is an offence, it’s just that you feel you have a lawful reason.

You would likely be asked at the point of discovery why you have it.

If the officer doesn’t feel you have a good reason you could be arrested and interviewed where you have another chance to explain.

If you aren’t arrested but reported you would likely be called in for a voluntary interview to explain your reasons before any court is set.

Be sensible and I doubt there would be many issues

 

[haptalaon]

It is probably worth remembering that for the offence of carrying an offensive weapon the burden of proof lies with the person carrying it that you have a good reason.
Police only have to show that you had it.

Saying nothing if you were challenged may not assist you in this instance

'Saying nothing' refers to not giving officers in the street talking to you/arresting you any additional information you are not legally required to.

So like, your name, where you've come from, what you're doing, where you are going later, etc. Police are trained to talk to people in a way to get them to self-incriminate.

If they decide to arrest you, and after you've called your choice of solicitor, and then are at a court - this is the time to explain what your good reason was, and give the information your solicitor advises.

Chit chatting with the bobby who is thinking about arresting you about what you are doing gets you nothing, but potentially costs you a lot. They literally can't arrest you without a reason. If they do, you can sue them. So in this interaction, they will be probing for anything you say they can use as that justification.

For example, you might say 'its for if i get into trouble or difficulty when I'm far away from help out in the countryside', and you mean 'to cut cordage into smaller lengths to rig an emergency tarp', but they have you on video saying that and what they hear is 'to stab someone in self defence' - they now have sufficient cause to arrest you, and the situation has become more complicated.


So yeah, stick closely to the script - be polite, but not chatty

• am i being detained? if no, leave the situation.
• under what power am i being detained? if they can't tell you, leave the situation
• assuming it's a stop and search: why do you have reason to suspect me specifically? if they can't give a description, leave the situation
• what object are you looking for? if they look anywhere that object cannot be, tell them and refuse consent for it to be searched
• and give out no other information

It's about trading off short-term discomfort for long-term consequences, if that makes sense. They can't arrest you on a hunch like in the movies, they have to follow procedure. They will be looking for opportunities to make their hunch procedural!

For example...you don't ask "am i being detained? under what power am i being detained? then I'm free to go", you chit chat with them, and they are very friendly and reasonable, and you mention going off into the wilderness for a few days and watching ray meares and all the great bushcraft you're learning and how much you can whip up from wood if you are in a pinch and....now they have cause to suspect you might have a knife which is what they need to search you, and now you are in trouble.

 

[haptalaon]

The statistical chances of being stopped and searched out in the sticks are infinitessimal.

oh absolutely. I wouldn't be worried or paranoid. Most panic about knife crime is centered on
cities and teenage boys, I agree it's super unlikely.

but I also find that knowing the law and knowing that the police are bound by the law as are you also builds confidence. Because you're not in a situation you don't understand - you are on equal footing, and can make informed choices about how to behave.

 

[Paul_B]

Isn't the offence relating to carrying the knife which you are doing unless you have / give a reason that is deemed valid. Other similar offences might be , and I'm not up on the legal terminology, being tooled up to commit burglaries or similar. In both situations actions that got you noticed and stopped will add to the cause and reason for arrest.

I am not a lawyer or police officer, as I reckon most on here, so like everyone else here the subtleties of when offence threshold is met is best left to those who are trained. However the idea that the point of offence /arrest is at a court proceedings not at arrest / detention stage doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Wildgoose]

You have to be suspected of committing an offence before you can be arrested. You would be given a chance to explain to the police why you have the knife before begin charged (sent to court).
The police can either accept your account or not, in which case you get the chance to tell a judge why you had it.

Personally, I would explain at the first given opportunity and every opportunity I got rather than face court. But that’s just my view based on my experience.

At court a reasonable question would be “why didn’t you tell the police at the time”.

Like you say, best left to the police and lawyers for advice though!

 

[Paul_B]

If you had a valid reason and gave it then why would that incriminate you. They've stopped you holding your knife in your possession. You have to give a reason at some point so what way is giving that reason at the beginning going to harm your defence later on in court?

I can think of one reason. You can't think of a good one and prefer to wait for a solicitor to help you with that one. I certainly think that's the way the police officer would have to handle that situation resulting in arrest. However I do accept others have a very ingrained and negative view of the police and legal system which would lead to the natural behaviour of keeping schtum in such interactions.