House of Commons Standing Cttee on Delegated Legislation (pt 2)

Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2004

[back to previous text]

Mr. Paice: Is the Minister telling us that the explanatory memorandum is incorrect? It clearly states that possession will be illegal under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. That only refers to the general term ''offensive weapon'', the definition of which has, to the best of my knowledge, not been listed in any form of schedule. The schedule that we are talking about relates to the 1988 Act and not to the 1953 Act. I do not follow how putting an item into a schedule relating to the 1988 Act links with the 1953 Act.
The issue of what is an offensive weapon under the 1953 Act was always down to the courts to decide and interpret. To the best of my knowledge, that remains the case. Yes, other legislation has superseded it in terms of specific items, such as flick knives. We are not talking about manufacture, import and sale, but purely about possession. I should be grateful if the Minister will tell us where the link is. By putting something into the schedule, how on earth do we build a link to the 1953 Act?
Column Number: 7

Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have examined the explanatory memorandum and it is wrong. The reference to the 1953 Act should not be there. The statutory instrument amends the order made under the 1988 Act, as I have been seeking to explain. The words in brackets—

''The amendment to the Statutory Instrument . . . ''—

are, in fact, wrong. Congratulations.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): Having established that, does the order have any effect on the simple possession of the items on the sheet?
Ms Blears: No. I think that we have established that those are two separate strands and that the order seeks to amend the sale, ban or importation of such items rather than the carrying of them in a public place, which has always been prohibited under the 1953 Act. The hon. Gentleman is right that the definitions can be defined in orders, but the courts will always determine whether the item falls in that definition.
Mr. Carmichael: It is a long time since I concerned myself with the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, but my recollection is that there were certain items—flick knives, for example—that were deemed offensive in themselves. Would it not have made sense to include plastic knives in the schedule as being offensive under the 1953 Act? Does it not then make something of a nonsense—
The Chairman: Order. I feel that we are having a debate, as opposed to hearing an intervention. There is a difference.
Ms Blears: What we are considering is an extension to an order made under the 1988 Act. It might be that the end result could have been achieved via a different legislative route, but that is not the route we have before us today. I am perfectly satisfied that the extension to the order will achieve what we have mind, which is to ban the sale, importation or manufacture of such weapons. They will remain unlawful under the 1953 Act also.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): The previous statutory instrument, no. 1988/2019, introduced the 15 categories to which the Minister referred. If I may crave your indulgence for a second, Mr. Hood, I would just like to quote from the explanatory note.

''Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire,''—

to which the Minister has referred—

''exposes or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire, or lends or gives to any other person, a weapon to which that section applies shall be guilty of an offence''.

That seems to imply that anyone who had such items in their possession would be guilty of an offence. Would the Minister clarify whether that is the case?
Ms Blears: The order refers to someone who has a weapon

''in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire, or lends or gives to any other person''.
Column Number: 8

That point is expressed in the wording. These are not easy matters for those who draft legislation to encompass. There are always difficulties in getting the definitions as tight as we can and in ensuring that our legislation is directed to our policy. The issues are not simple, but the order will address the issue of making it an offence to sell, manufacture or import such weapons. Once someone has bought such a weapon, different legislation makes owning it an offence. We want to capture every part of the supply chain, to ensure that we cut off the supply of weapons for which there is no legitimate purpose and which are often used in criminal acts. I am satisfied that this order concerns the sale, importation and manufacture of weapons. If a weapon that is defined as offensive is supplied, and a person is found carrying it in a public place, that person will be guilty of an offence under the 1953 Act.
Mr. Paice: I accept that the order concerns sale, manufacture and import. It is not related to possession. The inference in the explanatory memorandum, which the Minister has kindly agreed is incorrect, is that the order serves to make the possession of such weapons illegal. I am still very puzzled on that point. The 1953 Act used only the generic term ''offensive weapons''. Since then there have been attempts to specify certain types of weapon, such as flick knives, but I do not see how adding the provisions to a schedule alters whether the weapons in question are seen as offensive weapons. The Minister has just said that it is already illegal to possess them.
The Chairman: Order. We have had enough interventions. We are now debating. These points can be made when we move on to the debate.
Ms Blears: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman a little. I have information stating that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 created the offence of carrying an item with a blade or point without good reason or lawful excuse. The exemption to that covered only folding pocket knives. The possession of any other items with a blade or a point would be a criminal offence carrying the maximum penalty of up to two years' imprisonment. I will seek to clarify with my officials before the end of the debate whether that would create a substantive criminal offence as well as the generic criminal offence of having an offensive weapon under the 1953 Act.
Mr. Carmichael: Can the Minister clarify the 1988 provisions, which refer to items with a blade of 3.5 in or more and would not cover items with shorter blades?
Ms Blears: The exemption was a folding pocket knife with a blade of less than 3 in. It must be an article such as folding penknife.
Mr. Djanogly: Will the Minister say whether the order will apply to the short and long staffs used by martial artists, tens of thousands of which are moved around the country daily? Would possession of such items be covered?
Column Number: 9

Ms Blears: The items that we are discussing today are stealth knives and batons. The definition in the order covering batons and truncheons is an attempt to make the matter as simple and straightforward as possible. A straight, side-handled or friction-lock truncheon is sometimes known as a baton, and it would be for the courts to decide whether an item falls within that definition. I am sure that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) can find out more details about the 15 items that were banned under the 1988 order, which include death stars, hook knives, and weights attached to rope, cord or wire.
Mr. Djanogly: What is the difference between a long and short staff and a baton? A long and short staff is a stick with nothing on it, and not manufactured.
Ms Blears: I am not in a position to explain the difference between a piece of wood, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, and a baton. The order includes a definition of a baton, and it will be for the courts to decide whether an item before it is covered by the definition. A piece of wood that was not manufactured and was picked up from the ground would not be an item that we seek to ban the manufacture, sale or import of because it would not be being sold if it were not a manufactured item. I am in danger of speculating on a hypothetical situation. The courts will determine whether something is a baton if there is a prosecution with reference to the definition in the order.
The Chairman: Order. The Committee is becoming repetitive and the Minister may be over-generous in giving way. Hon. Members will have time to make their points during the debate.
Ms Blears: I was drawing my comments to a close.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I do not wish to challenge your ruling, but I should be grateful if you could clarify it. I thought that the whole purpose of Standing Committees was to enable us to challenge the Minister on points of debate. In my experience as a Member of the House, it is up to the Minister to decide whether to give way.
The Chairman: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is not challenging my ruling. I am trying to be helpful by stopping repetition of points that have been made more than once by a number of hon. Members. I am giving advice, and my ruling is that I hope that there is no more repetition. There is a separate issue and a separate debate. Types of instruments can be categorised in their hundreds, and we could have hundreds of interventions if there were no formality to our debate. Points can be made during debate about the sort of weapons and so on. That is the reason for my guidance to the Committee.
Ms Blears: Prohibiting the sale, manufacture and import of stealth knives and batons or truncheons is a matter of airline security and public safety. I believe that the measure will have clear benefits. It is the most effective way of stopping the supply of wholly unacceptable and dangerous weapons that have no
Column Number: 10
legitimate purpose and of trying to reduce the possibility of their ending up in the hands of criminals. It is of the utmost importance that we bring the measure into force, and I urge the Committee to support the order.

2.54 pm

©Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 20 April 2004