LAW REPORT v 9 July 1997: Butterfly knife made for causing injury to the person
A butterfly knife was a dangerous weapon per se, being made for the purpose of causing injury to the person.
The Divisional Court allowed the Director of Public Prosecution's appeal by way of case stated against the decision of the Stipendiary Magistrate at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court, dismissing a charge that the respondent, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, had with her in an aerodrome in the United Kingdom (Heathrow) an article, namely a butterfly knife, made or adapted for causing injury contrary to section 4(4) of the Aviation Security Act 1982.
Nicholas Coleman (CPS) for the Director of Public Prosecutions; the respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Lord Justice Henry said that knife in the present case fitted the description in the Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 (SI 1988/2019), to which section 141 of the Act applied. Section 141 provided that any person who manufactured, sold, hired, lent or imported such a weapon was guilty of an offence. It did not, however, cover the offence with which the respondent had been charged, simple possession of "certain dangerous articles" under section 4 of the Aviation Security Act 1982. The articles to which that section applied included those "made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person . . . or intended . . . for such use".
The issue was whether the knife was made for causing injury to the person.
The Crown had sought to prove that simply by producing the knife and referring the magistrate to section 141 of the 1988 Act and the statutory instrument made thereunder. They had submitted that as section 141 forbade, inter alia, the selling or hiring or lending of butterfly knives, it was appropriate to infer that a butterfly knife was a dangerous article as defined in section 4 of the Aviation Security Act 1982.
The magistrate was not persuaded, and had posed the following question for the court:
Whether, on the facts found, I was correct in holding, as a point of law, that evidence or further evidence was required to establish that a butterfly knife was an article made or
adapted for use for causing injury to
or incapacitating a person?
The starting point for the legal analysis was R v Williamson (1978) 67 Cr App R 35, in which Lord Lane CJ had emphasised the three categories of dangerous or offensive weapons wrapped up in the statutory language, and that it was a matter of fact for the jury whether the weapon fell into any and if so which of those categories.
The similarity between a flick knife and a butterfly knife was clear from Gibson v Wales (1983) 76 Cr App R 60. The conclusion in that case, which mutatis mutandis could be extended to butterfly knives, was that a flick knife was a dangerous weapon per se.
That case was considered in R v Simpson (1983) 78 Cr App R 114, in which the Court of Appeal found that such weapons were
plainly designed . . . to be concealed conveniently in the hand or in the pocket and there concealed to be brought into use with the minimum delay to the assailant and the minimum of warning to the victim . . . By their very design in this way they betray the purpose for which they were made
and that the conclusion that a flick knife was necessarily made for use for causing injury to the person was matter of which judicial notice could be taken.
Just as the courts had taken judicial notice of the fact that flick knives were offensive weapons, butterfly knives should also be so treated, because it was clear that they were essentially the same weapon involving the same features of concealment, speed and surprise. The magistrate could and should have taken judicial notice of that fact.
Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: Wreckage could be found within a week as search reaches 'very critical juncture', says minister
South Korea ferry disaster: Released transcripts show chaos and confusion in the moments before ferry sinks
Unbeliebable: The White House offer 'no comment' to anti-Justin Bieber petition
Loch Ness Monster found on Apple Maps?
Shropshire criminals ‘using unmanned drones and infrared cameras to find illegal cannabis farms’ – and then steal from the growers
The food poverty scandal that shames Britain: Nearly 1m people rely on handouts to eat – and benefit reforms may be to blame
Scottish independence: It is the English who should be on their knees, begging the Scots to vote ‘No’
'Sinful': Video of British Muslims dancing to Pharrell Williams's hit Happy comes under attack
Nigel Farage: I’m taking on the status quo, and the Establishment’s fighting back
Abdullah Deghayes: My son was the martyr of a just cause, says father of British teenager killed in Syria conflict
Ukraine crisis: Helicopter gunships take country closer to all-out war
- 1 Chelsea 1 Sunderland 2: Graceless reaction of Jose Mourinho a sad effort to hide his own flaws
- 2 A bottle of wine a day is not bad for you and abstaining is worse than drinking, scientist claims
- 3 Unbeliebable: The White House offer 'no comment' to anti-Justin Bieber petition
- 4 Loch Ness Monster found on Apple Maps?
- 5 Shropshire criminals ‘using unmanned drones and infrared cameras to find illegal cannabis farms’ – and then steal from the growers
£35000 - £50000 per annum + benefits+bonus+package: Harrington Starr: SharePoi...
£80000 - £95000 per annum: Charter Selection: A leading Global organisation Ja...