Director of Public Prosecutions v Stanley

The conditions identifying a relevant offence under section 19(10) of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 are disjunctive. An offence need satisfy only one of paragraphs (a) to (c). Paragraph (c) includes the offence of possessing a bladed article in a public place under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The apparent overlap between the underlying offence and the additional feature in paragraph (c) does not exclude that offence. The construction is consistent with the statutory purpose and with the requirement that a knife crime prevention order may protect the public from risks involving bladed articles.

The respondent pleaded guilty to possessing a bladed article in a public place, contrary to section 139(1) and (6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. On sentencing, the prosecution applied for a knife crime prevention order under section 19 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.

The District Judge refused the application, holding that the offence could not itself satisfy section 19(10)(c), which referred to possession of a bladed article when another offence was committed. The DPP appealed by way of case stated. The question was whether a single offence of possessing a bladed article could constitute a relevant offence under section 19(1) and (10)(c).

1. Appeal allowed. The question stated by the District Judge was answered in the affirmative. The case was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for consideration of the application for a knife crime prevention order.
2. The proper approach to statutory construction begins with the statutory language read in its context. External aids, including explanatory notes and guidance, have a secondary role, although they may illuminate context and purpose. This approach was restated in R (O (a minor, by her litigation friend AO)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3.
3. The conditions in section 19(10)(a) to (c) of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 are disjunctive. An offence qualifies as a relevant offence if it satisfies any one of them, although some offences may satisfy more than one.
4. Section 19(10)(c) is apt to include an offence of having a bladed article in a public place under section 139(1) and (6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The fact that the possession offence itself supplies the relevant possession of a bladed article does not make the provision parasitic or require a separate offence.
5. This interpretation is supported by section 19(4), which refers to protecting the public from harm involving a bladed article and preventing offences involving a bladed article. Possession of a bladed article in a public place presents the risks addressed by that provision. The explanatory notes and guidance under section 30 support, but are not needed to establish, the same construction.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the DPP’s appeal from the District Judge’s decision and remitted the application to the Magistrates’ Court.