We represented a client charged with possessing an offensive weapon in a private place after police discovered a sword at her home address.

Background

Police attended our clients address in relation to an unconnected investigation. During a search of the property, officers found a sword stored behind some furniture in one of the bedrooms. It appeared to fit the description of a prohibited item, as it looked like a sword with a curved blade of more than 50cm, contrary to s141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

We represented our client during her interview at the police station and provided a prepared statement explaining that the sword had originally belonged to her father, who had kept it for decorative purposes. He had later passed it onto her, and she had previously displayed it at her previous address. However, after moving into temporary accommodation, the sword had been stored amongst her belongings in the bedroom.

Our Involvement

Due to the possible age of the sword, we instructed a weapons expert, David Dyson, to examine it. We had hoped it would fall within one of the exemptions from legislation, namely that is was made before 1954 or was made at any other time according to traditional methods of making swords by hand.

The expert confirmed that the sword did appear to conform to the definition of a prohibited weapon under the statute and, following close examination, did not appear to have been made either before 1954 or using traditional hand-making methods. However, he described the blade as being very blunt, as the edge had been ground to create a flat surface rather than a sharp cutting edge. There had been no apparent attempts to sharpen it.

At trail we relied on section 5E of the Schedule to The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, which states that it is a defense for a defendant to show that the weapon in question is blunt. "Blunt" is specifically defined as a thin edge adapted to cutting, a sharp point adapted to piercing, or any other element adapted to cutting or piercing.

Outcome

As this defence has been raised within the expert record, it was for the prosecution to disprove it beyond all reasonable doubt. After examining the sword with the assistance of the expert, the court found that the defence had not been disproved to that standard, and our client was found Not Guilty of the offence charged.

Our client was represented by Mel Stooks, who was the solicitor with conduct of the case. Rifaat Al-Nimer represented her at the police station.