D, R v

The exception for a folding pocketknife in section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies only to an article properly described as a pocketknife. The three-inch cutting-edge limit qualifies that exception; it does not convert every foldable bladed article into a pocketknife.

A foldable cut-throat razor is plainly not a pocketknife. Its distinct name, characteristics and shaving function prevent that classification, even if its blade folds into the handle, cannot lock open and has a cutting edge below three inches.

The Crown appealed under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 from a ruling of His Honour Judge Ader at Wood Green Crown Court on 12 December 2018.

The defendant had pleaded guilty to drug-possession and obstruction counts. Count 3 alleged possession in a public place of an article with a blade or point, contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The article was a folding cut-throat razor with a cutting edge below two inches and no blade-locking mechanism.

The judge held that it was a folding pocketknife and therefore outside section 139 because of the three-inch limit. The central issue was whether a folding cut-throat razor could properly be regarded as a folding pocketknife.

1. The prosecution appeal was allowed. The Crown Court ruling was wrong in law. Proceedings on count 3 were ordered to resume under section 61(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. Section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 criminalises possession in a public place of an article with a blade or point. Section 139(2) excludes a folding pocketknife, and section 139(3) removes that exclusion where its cutting edge exceeds three inches. The latter provision qualifies the exception. It does not define all foldable bladed articles with a short cutting edge as pocketknives.
3. The authorities concerning blades which could not be folded immediately addressed a different question. In Harris v DPP and Fehmi v DPP [1993] 1 WLR 82, Deegan [1998] 2 Cr.App.R 121, and Sharma v DPP [2018] EWHC 3330 (Admin), it was accepted that the article was a pocketknife. The present question arose before consideration of the blade-folding mechanism: whether the article was a pocketknife at all.
4. A cut-throat razor is not aptly described as a pocketknife. A razor is designed and sharpened for shaving, a function not normally performed by a pocketknife. Its ability to fold into a handle did not alter its essential character. Accordingly, it was an article to which section 139(1) applied.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The prosecution appeal under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was allowed. The ruling on count 3 was held to be wrong in law and proceedings were ordered to resume.
• Wood Green Crown Court: On 12 December 2018, His Honour Judge Ader ruled that the folding cut-throat razor was a folding pocketknife and was excluded from section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 because its cutting edge was below three inches.