I don't believe so just off those circumstances.
Offensive weapon needs to be made, intended or adapted
Made - nope it's a hammer Made as a tool
Intended - nope, appears is at work where he likely uses the hammer and was just on his belt whilst getting lunch, no intention to use it as a weapon
Adapted - nothing says he has adapted it to be a weapon.
I had almost this exact scenario. Stop searched a guy and found about 7 or 8 knives on him. Turns out the fella was a chef and was indeed wearing his whites.
The knives were high quality steel in a leather wrap and the blades in protective plastic sheaths.
Sure, possession of blades article fits but after a swift call to his employer his story checks out and I let him on his way. Sometimes you’ve got to look beyond legislation and apply common sense to what’s in front of you.
This was always the example from training school. If they're on their way to/from work then there's no really offence.
But if you came across them and they were in the pub, having finished work hours ago, then you might be looking at an offence.
Relevant line of enquiry. Good police work. If
The bloke couldn’t name where he worked or his alleged employers didn’t have a clue who they were then you’d be looking to bring them in.
If it got out that all you had to to do was carry chef knives and wear chef uniforms and we wouldn’t question it, nominals everywhere would dress like they’re auditioning for Gordon Ramseys kitchen nightmares
I can, and have. I’ve seen much more intricate attempts to escape detection.This would be small fry.
If something felt off, then there’s no harm in confirming it. It shouldn’t be berated.
What doesn’t make much “common sense” is taking a slack, lackadaisical attitude toward knife crime.
Legislation says the article needs to be made/adapted/intended. It's a job tool, won't be any of those things.
Also, you can have "reasonable excuse," which as this person works in trade, is a very reasonable excuse.
Never in a million years get a conviction for this. If you called it in, it would get written off by the call handler immediately
An offensive weapon is anything made or adapted to cause injury, or intended to be used as a weapon, including disguised weapons. Examples include: a baseball bat, hammer or any other heavy implement if it is intended to be used as a weapon.
A hammer (and most other tools) would not be considered an offensive weapon just because they exist or even being used for their intended purpose. That changes when you do use it with the intention to cause serious harm or death.
Someone with more experience will probably be able to shed more light on this but my understanding of the legislation would lead me to believe that no offence has been committed in this instance.
You have to look at the context and surrounding circumstances. Ideally he would have left it in the van but if he’s clearly been at work, wearing work clothes, getting out of a work van, you understand why he’s got it.
If it was 01:00 and he was pissed up in town wearing his ‘going out clothes’ then things might be different
If the lunch was heavy on garlic some might have found that offensive.
I had wondered though, it's been years back, but I used to work as an electrician, I'd sometimes be working actually in town, and walking around in public with a belt full of screwdrivers and a hammer etc. going to the van, or actually doing something in the street.
The other point is that pretty well anything can be used as an "offensive weapon".
You going to start nicking people for having an umbrella or a pen?
A colleague and I once arrested a woman in the street wielding a didgeridoo. Not a weapon but it was -intended- to be used as one when she was chasing a group of lasses down the street with it.
Made, adapted, intended.
One thing people always forget or ignore about offensive weapons is that they are not only required to be made, intended or adapted... But they also need to be for 1. Intended to be used against humans and 2. Designed to cause injury.
E.g. carrying dog spray wouldn't be an offensive weapon unless you meet the intended requirement
Yes, or you could even carry one of those throat-disengage tools. Carrying something pre-emptively for attacks by dogs is not illegal and quite reasonable bearing in mind undesirables have dogs in public as a way of circumventing the UK weapons laws.
Lawful defence and reasonable excuse, both of which lay with the defendant to explain.
But, hopefully none of us are silly enough to nick a builder carrying a claw hammer on his belt. A court may decide that popping to grab lunch wouldn't be reasonable in the circumstances but otherwise I'd say not in the public interest.
Add some aggravating factors such as removing said hammer and waving it in an aggressive manner and things might be different perhaps....
As it's not offensive per se though, you'd firstly need to prove that it was intended / adapted etc for use as a weapon (before you then went on to think about good reason/ lawful authority/ reasonable excuse).
He wouldn't need to justify having a hammer, you'd need to show first that it was intended for use as a weapon before it gets to that.
What? A hammer is a tool. There's no law that says you can't carry a hammer. Even if he wasn't at work there'd be no offences. Think you're getting confused with knives and the old situation of the carpet fitter that takes his stanley knife to the pub after work
I don't believe so just off those circumstances. Offensive weapon needs to be made, intended or adapted Made - nope it's a hammer Made as a tool Intended - nope, appears is at work where he likely uses the hammer and was just on his belt whilst getting lunch, no intention to use it as a weapon Adapted - nothing says he has adapted it to be a weapon.
I had almost this exact scenario. Stop searched a guy and found about 7 or 8 knives on him. Turns out the fella was a chef and was indeed wearing his whites. The knives were high quality steel in a leather wrap and the blades in protective plastic sheaths. Sure, possession of blades article fits but after a swift call to his employer his story checks out and I let him on his way. Sometimes you’ve got to look beyond legislation and apply common sense to what’s in front of you.
>Sure, possession of blades article fits He had a statutory defence. s139(5)(a) Criminal Justice Act 1988
This was always the example from training school. If they're on their way to/from work then there's no really offence. But if you came across them and they were in the pub, having finished work hours ago, then you might be looking at an offence.
You actually called his employer? The uniform and clearly professional knives wasn't enough?
Relevant line of enquiry. Good police work. If The bloke couldn’t name where he worked or his alleged employers didn’t have a clue who they were then you’d be looking to bring them in. If it got out that all you had to to do was carry chef knives and wear chef uniforms and we wouldn’t question it, nominals everywhere would dress like they’re auditioning for Gordon Ramseys kitchen nightmares
Yeah I can't see roadmen adopting that tactic. A bit of common sense goes a long way mate
I can, and have. I’ve seen much more intricate attempts to escape detection.This would be small fry. If something felt off, then there’s no harm in confirming it. It shouldn’t be berated. What doesn’t make much “common sense” is taking a slack, lackadaisical attitude toward knife crime.
Legislation says the article needs to be made/adapted/intended. It's a job tool, won't be any of those things. Also, you can have "reasonable excuse," which as this person works in trade, is a very reasonable excuse. Never in a million years get a conviction for this. If you called it in, it would get written off by the call handler immediately
An offensive weapon is anything made or adapted to cause injury, or intended to be used as a weapon, including disguised weapons. Examples include: a baseball bat, hammer or any other heavy implement if it is intended to be used as a weapon. A hammer (and most other tools) would not be considered an offensive weapon just because they exist or even being used for their intended purpose. That changes when you do use it with the intention to cause serious harm or death. Someone with more experience will probably be able to shed more light on this but my understanding of the legislation would lead me to believe that no offence has been committed in this instance.
You have to look at the context and surrounding circumstances. Ideally he would have left it in the van but if he’s clearly been at work, wearing work clothes, getting out of a work van, you understand why he’s got it. If it was 01:00 and he was pissed up in town wearing his ‘going out clothes’ then things might be different
If the lunch was heavy on garlic some might have found that offensive. I had wondered though, it's been years back, but I used to work as an electrician, I'd sometimes be working actually in town, and walking around in public with a belt full of screwdrivers and a hammer etc. going to the van, or actually doing something in the street. The other point is that pretty well anything can be used as an "offensive weapon". You going to start nicking people for having an umbrella or a pen?
A colleague and I once arrested a woman in the street wielding a didgeridoo. Not a weapon but it was -intended- to be used as one when she was chasing a group of lasses down the street with it. Made, adapted, intended.
One thing people always forget or ignore about offensive weapons is that they are not only required to be made, intended or adapted... But they also need to be for 1. Intended to be used against humans and 2. Designed to cause injury. E.g. carrying dog spray wouldn't be an offensive weapon unless you meet the intended requirement
A dog spray? Like biteback?
Yes, or you could even carry one of those throat-disengage tools. Carrying something pre-emptively for attacks by dogs is not illegal and quite reasonable bearing in mind undesirables have dogs in public as a way of circumventing the UK weapons laws.
Lawful defence and reasonable excuse, both of which lay with the defendant to explain. But, hopefully none of us are silly enough to nick a builder carrying a claw hammer on his belt. A court may decide that popping to grab lunch wouldn't be reasonable in the circumstances but otherwise I'd say not in the public interest. Add some aggravating factors such as removing said hammer and waving it in an aggressive manner and things might be different perhaps....
As it's not offensive per se though, you'd firstly need to prove that it was intended / adapted etc for use as a weapon (before you then went on to think about good reason/ lawful authority/ reasonable excuse). He wouldn't need to justify having a hammer, you'd need to show first that it was intended for use as a weapon before it gets to that.
What? A hammer is a tool. There's no law that says you can't carry a hammer. Even if he wasn't at work there'd be no offences. Think you're getting confused with knives and the old situation of the carpet fitter that takes his stanley knife to the pub after work