Trains and Knives / Axes. BTP Official Stance

[mace242]

I am due to go on the Axe course at Woodcraft School in April. Out of worry that I'll get arrested on the train I contacted British Transport Police (BTP) to check what would happen if I was to carry my knife and axe within my bag.

I told them that they would be in my rucksack and that this would be in a cover and that this would be locked with a padlock and that it would not leave my sight, but that it would be going on a train with me. I asked what would happen if I was stopped at a metal detector and they were found - would I be arrested for example. Below is the answer given.

I have asked for clarification as this isn't up to much and really makes me worry that they are leaving it open to (as I have heard is the case) simply arrest anybody with any kind of knife and then sort it out at the station afterwards.

Full text of email response (if you want the actual email (word document) forwarded to you pm me your email address):

Sir,

POSSESSION OF AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON IN A PUBLIC PLACE

• The possession of an offensive weapon in a public place is prohibited by Section1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and alternatively Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

• The prohibition in respect of carrying or otherwise possessing an offensive weapon in a public place is nevertheless moderated to the extent that necessary and appropriate possession, as in the case of a police officer’s truncheon, is legitimised in consequence of what is termed lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

• THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY DEFENCE
This defence extends to persons such as an on duty policeman but does not extend to such cases as security guards at dance halls who carried a truncheon "as deterrent and as part of their uniform" (R v Spanner and others [1973] Crim LR 704).

• THE REASONABLE EXCUSE DEFENCE
This defence covers the concept of self defence in cases of an imminent threat, but not the carrying of a knife on the off chance of being attacked (R v Peacock [1973] Crim LR 639); nor to repel unlawful violence which the defendant had knowingly and deliberately brought about by creating a situation in which violence was liable to be inflicted (Malnik v DPP [1989] Crim LR 451).

• In OHLSON v HYLTON [1975] 2 All ER 490 Queens Bench Division:
The defendant in this case was a carpenter who was on his way home from work carrying his tools in a bag. On his way home he was trying to get onto a tube train when he got involved in an argument with another passenger. A scuffle ensued and the two of them fell over. The defendant took a hammer from his bag and hit the other man with it. He was arrested and charged with assault and also possession of an offensive weapon, contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.

He was convicted of the assault but acquitted of the offensive weapon charge on the grounds that he was in lawful possession of the hammer as it was a tool of his trade.

• The defences of lawful authority or alternatively reasonable excuse may well apply therefore to circumstances which might be termed possession for environmental or hobby’ purposes.

• Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act provides similar if somewhat expanded notions of defence(s) to the possession of an offence weapon in a public place to those found within the Prevention of Crimes Act 1953.

• Namely 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 an article with him in a public place.

It shall also be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him -
for use at work;
(b) for religious reasons; OR
(c) as part of any national costume.

• In effect therefore the defences as provided by Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 may also apply to circumstances in question; namely possession for ‘environmental or hobby’ purposes.

• It must be remembered however that these so called defences operate in respect of persons who have in the first instance been charged with possession of an offensive weapon in a public place; in that such matters operate in terms of what is known as reverse onus. Namely it is for the defence to establish the veracity of all the essential elements of the defence(s) pleaded and for the judge or jury of fact to accept or otherwise dismiss this particular assertion.

• It would be wrong however given the manner in which these particular defences operate for the police service to intimate to a member of the public that he or she may possess an offensive weapon on the basis that its possession appears both legitimate and reasonable and thus likely to be covered by one or more of these statutory defences.

• The best advice that may be offered is that possession of an offensive weapon in a public place is unlawful but that if arrested and charged with possession of an offensive weapon in a public place then certain defences may subsequently become available.

James H Millar
Justice Directorate

 

[brancho]

This about you proving you need to have these items in your posession. If you take with you a booking form and kit list for the course this should suffice to prove you require them. If you asked if you have anything in your posession that may be an offensive weapon be up front and show them what you have and explain why. an open and honest aproach should see some common sense.

 

[mace242]

This about you proving you need to have these items in your posession. If you take with you a booking form and kit list for the course this should suffice to prove you require them. If you asked if you have anything in your posession that may be an offensive weapon be up front and show them what you have and explain why. an open and honest aproach should see some common sense.

This is what I thought and have done for previous courses. My worry is that the shift seems to be from allowing you to have a sensible reason to simply arresting you, with all the rigmarole of fingerprinting and dna and so on (not that I have anything to fear - I've never broken the law), and then sorting it out - this does seem to be the tone of the original response. This is the area that I've asked for clarification on.

 

[mace242]

btw. Posted this on to BB too and will post any responses that BTP send me there as well.

 

[Nagual]

Their reply seems quite clear to me. They cannot tell you it's okay to carry a knife or other item that comes under the legislation because if they do they are essentially saying you can use that as an excuse. What they are saying is that if you are stopped and the officer arresting you doesn't believe your story of going on a course etc. then at court you can prove you had reasonable cause. They are saying no one has the right to carry potentially offensive weapons about with them, but you do have the right to use 'reasonable cause' as a defense if arrested.

Nothing has changed really, it is still up to the officer at the time to choose to arrest you if they think you are either lying or a danger to yourself or someone else. Remember just because you have a good reason, that doesn't mean you might be planning to use it as a weapon too.

 

[BorderReiver]

Looks like a reasonable,guarded reply IMO.

You have a good reason for carrying your tools on the train;the tools are secure and not readily accessible.

As long as you don't use them in a defensive manner there should be no problem.

As has been said,take proof that you are going on a legitimate course which requires you to take your tools with you.


Good luck and enjoy the course.

 

[TheGreenMan]

I think that there may be a danger in getting hung-up on wanting to be ‘Mr Responsible’ or appearing to be ‘Mr Responsible’ to a police officer should one be stopped and searched in transit while carrying tools, which is understandable.

Personally, I place the emphasis on ‘what are my realistic chances of being stopped and searched?’, rather than worrying about what might happen if I am. By this, I mean, if I’m wandering around with tools in my bag, and I’m not acting in a threatening way in a public place, then why would a policeman have any reason to stop and search me? After all, I don’t look like a hooligan, and I don’t behave like a hooligan, even if provoked (except on Web forums, of course).

Generally speaking, an object only becomes an ‘offensive weapon’ if one beats the living poop out of someone with it, or threatens to do so, or acts in a threatening manner, whether the object is a felling axe, or a bath sponge (or if one is carrying a bath sponge in a public place for the purpose of self-defence). So, the lesson I take from this is, when carrying tools (or a bath sponge), is, don’t, under any circumstances, get drawn into conflicts (verbal or physical) with others, and specifically during the journey by public transport. If someone wants to ‘mix it’ with you in a public place, then don’t utter a single word to them and walk away. Not always an easy thing to do, but in my opinion, essential.

My guess is that one is only likely to be stopped and searched by an officer of the law, if one gives them good reason to do so.

I often carry tools around in a bag, and a pocket knife, and forget that they are even in my possession until I have need of a tool, and when I’ve finished using it, I put it back in the bag or pocket. This is what I do in heavily populated areas where I might encounter other people frequently, and who might see me using the tool. If I were out in the country and away from large numbers of people, I’d have an even more relaxed regime with tools in public places, but still acting in a considerate way.

An understanding of the law is important, but I place the emphasis on acting with consideration for others and avoiding action that could be interpreted as threatening, and of course, the safety of myself and others when using a tool in a public place, rather than being preoccupied with my defence in law for a situation that may never happen.

This is my personal viewpoint, and I don’t expect anyone else to share this viewpoint.

I found Mr Millar’s email reply to be interesting and reasonable, by the way.

Best regards,
Paul.

 

[mace242]

I think that there may be a danger in getting hung-up on wanting to be ‘Mr Responsible’ or appearing to be ‘Mr Responsible’ to a police officer should one be stopped and searched in transit while carrying tools, which is understandable.

Personally, I place the emphasis on ‘what are my realistic chances of being stopped and searched?’, rather than worrying about what might happen if I am. By this, I mean, if I’m wandering around with tools in my bag, and I’m not acting in a threatening way in a public place, then why would a policeman have any reason to stop and search me? After all, I don’t look like a hooligan, and I don’t behave like a hooligan, even if provoked (except on Web forums, of course).

Generally speaking, an object only becomes an ‘offensive weapon’ if one beats the living poop out of someone with it, or threatens to do so, or acts in a threatening manner, whether the object is a felling axe, or a bath sponge (or if one is carrying a bath sponge in a public place for the purpose of self-defence). So, the lesson I take from this is, when carrying tools (or a bath sponge), is, don’t, under any circumstances, get drawn into conflicts (verbal or physical) with others, and specifically during the journey by public transport. If someone wants to ‘mix it’ with you in a public place, then don’t utter a single word to them and walk away. Not always an easy thing to do, but in my opinion, essential.

My guess is that one is only likely to be stopped and searched by an officer of the law, if one gives them good reason to do so.

I often carry tools around in a bag, and a pocket knife, and forget that they are even in my possession until I have need of a tool, and when I’ve finished using it, I put it back in the bag or pocket. This is what I do in heavily populated areas where I might encounter other people frequently, and who might see me using the tool. If I were out in the country and away from large numbers of people, I’d have an even more relaxed regime with tools in public places, but still acting in a considerate way.

An understanding of the law is important, but I place the emphasis on acting with consideration for others and avoiding action that could be interpreted as threatening, and of course, the safety of myself and others when using a tool in a public place, rather than being preoccupied with my defence in law for a situation that may never happen.

This is my personal viewpoint, and I don’t expect anyone else to share this viewpoint.

I found Mr Millar’s email reply to be interesting and reasonable, by the way.

Best regards,
Paul.

I pretty much agree with all that. My main concern is that it seems to be that they are putting metal detectors in stations (I will be going through 2 busy ones and changing trains at one of them) more and more and that they may not listen to reason and will simply arrest people first, add their sharps to a pile to be shown on telly and then find out if you're ok to have had them in the first place. It's the worry of the ever increasing of assumption of guilt on behalf of the authorities.

I will be OK I expect and am not really worrying. Just wanted to see if I got a "no - don't take that on the train"/

 

[TheGreenMan]

I pretty much agree with all that. My main concern is that it seems to be that they are putting metal detectors in stations (I will be going through 2 busy ones and changing trains at one of them)...

I fail to see what ‘they’ might gain by installing metal detectors in any old train station. I mean, we all carry a certain amount of metal even in the most innocent of circumstances, what would be gained from such measures, and what unacceptable delays might such inspections cause to the law abiding citizen?

I can understand that the security at Eurostar might be seen in the same light as air travel, and in even in school premises, as the little blighters seem intent on sticking metal into each others flesh, at least if the press are to be believed

I...more and more and that they may not listen to reason and will simply arrest people first, add their sharps to a pile to be shown on telly and then find out if you're ok to have had them in the first place. It's the worry of the ever increasing of assumption of guilt on behalf of the authorities...

Yes, well that might be the impression gained if one takes a blind bit of notice of what the media has to say rather than following common sense.

...I will be OK I expect and am not really worrying. Just wanted to see if I got a "no - don't take that on the train"/

I have more faith in a judge than I do in the media, any day of the week. I'm of the opinion that Nanny has her place, but only in the realm of the family, not in the great outdoors.

Discretion usually wins the day.

Best regards,
Paul.

EDIT: Crikey, I sound like a pompous, old, wind-bag in this post
.

 

[Cap'n Badger]

An' yet....I have travelled many times on the public transport system..(trains/buses/aircraft) wi' a sword....flintlock an' baker rifle wi'out EVER being stopped or questioned by the law........tho I was dressed as a pirate at the time...lol....even had me photo taken at Cardiff airport wi' four mp5 armed police.....go figure

 

[dommyracer]

I recently returned from a short trip out to find that there was a pretty big police presence at my local station, including a metal detector - probably in connection to the serious stabbing that took place outside the station a short time before.

I went and spoke to one of the BTP officers, and told him I had an axe and two knives on me (all in my pack). He looked me up and down, saw the mud on my boots and smelt the woodsmoke on my clothes and let me walk around the detector....

 

[Nagual]

Luckily for us, unlike most tabloids want you to believe, most Police are fairly bright and sensible folks. They don't arrest people just because they feel like it or stupid reasons - mainly because of all the paper work that goes with it.


Cheers, Nag.

 

[Lore]

I was in New York a couple of years ago and went to visit The Empire State Building. I had a Leatherman Wave with me on my belt. As I entered the building I had to pass through a metal detector to gain access to the viewing floors at the top. I walked up to one of the guards before I went through the metal detector explained that I had the Leatherman with me, He explained to me that I would have to leave it with them take a ticket and reclaim it when I was finished. That is what I did. My point is don't try to go through a metal detector knowing you are going to get into trouble but explain to the people in question what you have and the reasons you have it.

 

[xavierdoc]

This is what I thought and have done for previous courses. My worry is that the shift seems to be from allowing you to have a sensible reason to simply arresting you, with all the rigmarole of fingerprinting and dna and so on (not that I have anything to fear - I've never broken the law), and then sorting it out - this does seem to be the tone of the original response. This is the area that I've asked for clarification on.

PM sent.

Thanks for an interesting post- I'll rep you if I can work out how!

I'd be interested in the .doc reply you received. Sooner or later someone on this forum or BB is going to fall foul of well-intentioned measures to curb knife crime.

Can only hope common-sense (of all parties) prevails.

Cheers,

 

[TheGreenMan]

...Sooner or later someone on this forum or BB is going to fall foul of well-intentioned measures to curb knife crime...

In the light of dommyracer’s post, it does seem likely, doesn’t it? I just hope it’s not me (being selfish, as usual).

...Can only hope common-sense (of all parties) prevails...

Ditto that.

Cheers,
Paul.

 

[tommy the cat]

A friend of mine had a shotgun on a train that he had bought from London serious money I think IIRC over £15k worth,anyway it was in a locked case that was handcuffed to him.
A passenger kept asking him what was in it untill after alot of provocation (he's fiery and Italian) he admitted it was a gun. Bloke went quiet after that and got off......guess what armed police on the train. Anyway wasn't a problem he had all the correct documents and import doc's no prob's went on his way.
Point I think is not trying to be sneaky+ relevant docs and like my friend did when he saw the police entering the train quickly got there attention to let them know it was him they were interested in.I would make it quite difficult for the 'weapon' to be removed easy ie in a sheath in a bag in a bag etc so that it is not possible to readily get to the item in order to use as a weapon. Must admit it worries me having sharps near to public places
Dave

 

[Mirius]

Not so easy if travelling in a bushcraft context, but a locked steel case has been recommended to me for travelling on public transport.

 

[maddave]

, most Police are fairly bright and sensible folks.


Cheers, Nag.

Never been to Manchester then........ Best laugh I've had in ages..Cheers:You_Rock_

 

[Pablo]

Although the BTP reply was informed and guarded, It wasn't entirely accurate. Reasonable excuse isn't just to do with self-defence, it is also to do with the legitimate reason you're carrying it.

There's plenty of case law stating that a person will have a reasonable excuse as part of their job, pastime and even fancy dress.

This isn't to say that a BTP copper won't arrest you if they suspect that you are carrying anything as the onus is on you to prove otherwise. Unfortunately, as the courts are ultimately responsible for deciding reasonable excuse you'd have to wait until you get to court!

IMHO you're doing everything right. I also advise taking the course list (and the print out from BTP.)

Pablo.

 

[Graham_S]

Well I'll be travelling to the bushmoot on the train again. I'll have a couple of knives, an axe and a folding saw. I'm not worried. I have a good reason to have those things in my possesion.