Crime and Policing Bill

Written evidence submitted by Mr. Ronald E Flook BA (CPB75)

CRIME AND POLICING BILL 2025 - CLAUSE 12.

Executive Summary

• Although certain aspects of the proposed law are needed and supported it leaves many unanswered question has to how it would operate in practice.

• The broad definition of an article with a blade or point is far too wide and the seizure of any items under this broad definition is potentially unworkable.

• There is no guidance to Police Officers and what would be the reasonable grounds to suspect the item could be used in violence.

• Does the clause require the removal of all bladed articles including domestic cutlery from a premises if one other piece is suspected of being used.

• There is no compensation for items seized and inadvertently lost or destroyed.

• Why other items that could potentially be used as a weapon are not considered for seizure.

Introduction

1. I am a retired Civil Service retained grade B2 equivalent who had a 44 year career which saw service at establishments in the UK, and afloat with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service I have been interested in Military and Antique Knives since the early 1970’s, my interest being as much about the history of the items, and the people involved, as the objects themselves. This interest has resulted in a number of publications covering the identification and history of such items. I am member of the Antique Bowie Knife Association and prior to its closure a member of the Wilkinson Sword Collectors Society. I have written the Chapter on British Military Knives for a US author and am a moderator on the Military Knives and Daggers of the World forum. I also provided an expert witness statement in the case of the Crown v Perkins at Maidstone Magistrates Court in October 2009. I am also part of a small group of collectors, dealers and authors who have consulted with Home Office regarding aspects of legislation in respect of Machete/Zombie along with the forthcoming legislation regarding Ninja type knives and online knife sales. Inputs have also been made to previous legislation such as the Offensive Weapons Act.

2. I fully support the need to restrict bladed articles from being used in violence and the banning the ownership of items such as Zombie knives and Ninja Knives, which have no legitimate use, goes a long way in doing so. But my reasons for submitting evidence to the Committee is because I consider that aspects of Clause 12 could impact on legitimate responsible collectors and others such as veterans or their heirs who have retained edged or pointed items from their military service, whilst making no impact on related violence. Those with violence in mind are unlikely to be bothered that their item has been taken away and just go and source another.

Reasons for Seizure

3. During the debate o the 1st April 2025 Diana R. Johnson MP The Minister of State, Home Department made this statement to illustrate the need for the Clause

I would like to share a case study to illustrate the need for this measure. Police officers investigating the supply of illegal drugs effected entry to the home address of a person linked to the supply of class A drugs, under the authority of a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was on a suspended sentence for supplying drugs and had previous convictions for offences of violence, including grievous bodily harm and possession of a knife. Upon search of his bedroom, officers found a 44 cm machete. He was charged with drugs offences, but the police had no powers to seize the machete. For the weapon to be removed from the property under existing law, it would have to have already been used unlawfully, either to hurt somebody or to damage property.

4. Such a scenario has of course now been overtaken by events in that such a weapon is now banned. But let me raise a potential hypothetical scenario where an innocent party could have their property seized.

5. A neighbour hears a domestic dispute next door. Calls the Police, they attend. On entering the property they see the Japanese World War 2 sword that belonged to one of the occupants father hanging on the wall. The item is perfectly legal falling within defences of OWA 1988 Section 141. There have been no previous issues with the occupants , but the Police not being experts in historical swords seize the item relying on "just in case" approach to both the domestic dispute and the weapon. And do they, to be on the safe side, remove every other bladed article such as kitchen knives or bladed tools from the property?

6. In another scenario which is a play on the case quoted by The Minister :

Police officers investigating the supply of illegal drugs effected entry to the home address of a person linked to the supply of class A drugs, under the authority of a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was on a suspended sentence for supplying drugs and had previous convictions for offences of violence, including grievous bodily harm and possession of a knife. Upon search of his bedroom, officers find a large kitchen knife and a baseball bat. Although no drugs were found in this case but given the persons previous background the large kitchen knife was seized. He is over 18 and within hours goes to a local store and just buys a replacement for the seized item. The police had no grounds for removing the baseball bat, an item that could inflict serious injury if used as a weapon.

7. As was also pointed out in the 1st April debate the phrase " reasonable grounds" is inherently subjective and open to interpretation, which could lead to inconsistent enforcement and, in some cases, potential abuse of power. There is already some evidence to support inconsistent enforcement within the bounds of existing laws. The collecting community are well aware of an incident where a Police Officer legally within a property to seek witness information on a local incident noted the person’s collection of bayonets and told the owner they were all illegal, even repeating this after taking advice from a more senior Officer. This of course was incorrect but gave the owner much concern that their perfectly legal collection would be confiscated.

Return of seized Property

8. The clause requires that If a person believes that their property has been seized in error, they will be able to make a complaint to the police, as with any other police matter, if they so wish. If the owner of a seized article believes that it has been seized in error, they may apply to a magistrates court for an order that the article be returned.

9. This places the onus on the owner rather than the Police. Although it is unlikely that anyone with criminal intent would go to the trouble of asking for their item back, why should an innocent party such as genuine collector or someone with a family heirloom be placed in the position to do so. If no criminal intent has been established the item should automatically be returned within a specified period.

Items Lost or Destroyed by the Police

10. Although it is likely to be a rare occasion it is not unknown for items to be lost or otherwise misplaced by the police. If a legal bladed item is lost or inadvertently destroyed while held by the Police what mechanism is there for the owner to claim compensation?

Identification of bladed items

11. The clause as written applies to every article with a blade or point. What will be the police guidelines for deciding where to apply seizure or not based on the items design and features. Does something with a point include items knitting needles, meat skewers? Are folding knives with blades less than 3 inches to be included? Given that some existing regional constabulary guidance on bladed articles has been noted as being incorrect it is considered that an aide memoire be produced with the aid of experts on what constitutes illegal and legal bladed items.

Defences

12. There is a lack of defence or reference to any defences that may exist under other legislation. If a persons property is seized and they have to apply to a Magistrate on what basis would the court allow the return of the property. OWA 1988 Section 141 contains the historic importance defence for some items and this should also be applied to Clause 12. It is highly unlikely that someone with criminal intent would do so but a genuine collector, or other owners, such as veterans or heirs to a family heirloom certainly would. Court time could be reduced if the item was the subject to an historical importance certificate, something a number of collectors and other experts have been pressing for.

13. There would also seem to be a lack of clarity on rights of a legal defence that is already contained within statute for having a bladed article and the powers of the Police to seize it. For example members of the Sikhs community can legally have and carry Kirpans. Does such a right become forfeit if it was found in a scenario similar to that quoted by the Minister?

Conclusion

14. The efforts to curb knife crime are to be welcomed as are the efforts that led to the banning of items such as the so called Zombie Knives. The aims of the Clause are understood but they will go little or no way in reducing knife related crime. It is the person not the object that is the problem and until the issues that are within society are solved the problem will continue.

15. The Clause as drafted leaves many unanswered question as to how it would be applied in practice. There being no guidance to the Police as to where the threshold would be to permit seizure. There will be many cases where the possibility of violence is obvious due to the history and nature of the occupants, however there will be many that are not clear cut and lead the Police to take a cautious approach and seize on a just in case basis.

16. There is also a lack of clarity as to the extent the term bladed article will be used; the list of such items is endless ranging from gardening tool to Zombie knives. Will the police seize anything that has a blade? What would constitute a pointed article and why other items such as a baseball bat would not be seized in circumstances where, for example, the occupants has a history of violence?

Recommendations

17. The clause needs a fundamental re-write or have supplementary information that provides guidance to the Police on what constitutes the threshold for seizure.

18. Consideration as to the inclusion of other potential weapons.

19. Defences need to be included to clarify situations such as where the occupant can legally have the item e.g those of the Sikh religion.

20. The introduction of a certificate of historic importance to help save court time where a person seeks an order from a magistrate for the items return.

21. Clarification of what constitutes a bladed or pointed item.

22. Compensation for items lost or inadvertently destroyed while in Police custody.

April 2025