Crown Prosecution Service v Christof

Whether an article is an offensive weapon is generally a question of fact. The statutory definition creates three categories: articles made for causing injury, articles adapted for that purpose, and articles intended by the person carrying them for that purpose. The carrier’s intention is relevant only to the third category.

An article made as a knuckleduster remains an offensive weapon even if incorporated into a belt and given an additional use. However, an item resembling a knuckleduster may be found not to be one if features show that it was manufactured as a belt buckle rather than for causing injury. The fact-finding tribunal must examine the item and apply the correct statutory category.

The Crown Prosecution Service appealed by case stated against a decision of a district judge at Bridgend Magistrates’ Court. The respondent had been arrested wearing a leather belt whose metal buckle resembled a knuckleduster. The district judge found that it was being used as a buckle, was not an offensive weapon per se, and was not intended by the respondent to be used as a weapon.

The appeal concerned whether the district judge had applied the correct approach under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, particularly whether the item was made or adapted for causing injury, notwithstanding its use as a belt buckle.

1. Appeal allowed in part and decision quashed. The district judge’s decision was quashed and the issue was remitted for a fresh decision.
2. Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 identifies three categories of offensive weapon: an article made for causing injury, an article adapted for causing injury, and an article intended by the person carrying it to be used for causing injury. The carrier’s intention is relevant only to the third category.
3. Whether an article is an offensive weapon is ordinarily a question of fact for the tribunal. Judicial notice may be taken where the article’s design plainly reveals that it was made for causing injury. A knuckleduster is within that category.
4. If the item was manufactured as a knuckleduster, its additional use as a belt buckle would not prevent it from being an offensive weapon per se. Conversely, unusual features might permit the tribunal to conclude that an item resembling a knuckleduster was manufactured as a fashion belt buckle and was not made for causing injury.
5. The district judge had decided the first question by relying on the respondent’s lack of intention to use the item as a weapon. That applied the third statutory category to the separate question whether the item was made for causing injury. The approach was legally erroneous.
6. The original item should be examined if possible, together with evidence about how and for what purpose it was manufactured. The court noted the potential importance of the issue because such items may be widely worn and conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence subject to the statutory exception.

• Bridgend Magistrates’ Court: The district judge found that the belt buckle was not an offensive weapon per se and was not an offensive weapon in fact.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The Crown Prosecution Service’s appeal by case stated succeeded. The decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration according to law.