Samuels, R. v

An article is an offensive weapon under section 1(4) only if it was made or adapted for causing personal injury, or was intended by the person possessing it to be used for that purpose. Capability of causing injury is not the statutory test. A direction substituting that test is a material misdirection where the character of the article is central to the charge, and the resulting conviction cannot be treated as safe.

A misjoinder does not itself render convictions unsafe. A conviction on another count is affected only where the misjoinder caused prejudice.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook of possessing an offensive weapon and a bladed article in a public place. The jury had been unable to agree on a charge of assault by beating.

The offensive-weapon count concerned wooden nunchucks found in the appellant’s rucksack. The trial judge directed the jury that the issue was whether they were capable of causing injury. The appellant appealed that conviction and renewed an application concerning the alleged misjoinder of all three counts.

The central issues were whether the direction correctly stated section 1(4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, and whether any misjoinder had prejudiced the remaining conviction.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The court quashed the conviction for possessing an offensive weapon. It refused the renewed application concerning the conviction for possessing a bladed article, which therefore stood.

2. Section 1(4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 defines an offensive weapon as an article made or adapted for causing personal injury, or intended by its possessor to be used for that purpose. The statutory definition is straightforward. If an article is not made for causing injury, the jury must consider whether it was intended to be used to cause injury.

3. The judge’s direction that an article was an offensive weapon if it was capable of causing injury was wrong. Capability was not the test. The court referred to R v Simpson [1983] 1 WLR 1494 as helpful elucidation of the statutory definition.

4. The misdirection was material because the nature of the nunchucks was a central issue. The court could not say that the conviction was safe, so it quashed the verdict on that count.

5. It was unnecessary to re-examine whether the counts had been properly joined. Even if there had been misjoinder, it could not make the convictions unsafe without prejudice. There was none: the jury had repeatedly been directed to consider each count separately and had disagreed on the assault count. The suspended sentence for possession of the bladed article, the more serious count, remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against the offensive-weapon conviction and quashed that verdict; refused the renewed application concerning the bladed-article conviction.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: on 7 December 2015 convicted the appellant of possessing an offensive weapon and a bladed article in a public place. The jury did not reach a verdict on assault by beating.