Source
r/policeuk•
skellious

What is an offensive weapon?

:ATP: :UK: Ask the Police (UK-wide)

Hi,

Just looking to check my understanding is correct. I was discussing with someone a case in Australia where a woman used a stiletto heel (of her shoe) to stab someone in the head.

In the UK, would this be considered an offensive weapon once she took it off and started wielding it as such? My understanding is that it probably would be found to be one in court, provided she intended to cause injury with it at the time, but if I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected.

Posted May 22, 2022, 7:08 PM UTC

415
[deleted]•

Anything made, adapted or intended for use to cause injury to a person.

As soon as she held that shoe with intent to cause injury, it's an offensive weapon.

There are certain defences available, most obvious being instant arming if it was for spontaneous self defence.

What would actually be charged in practice is another question that depends on the circumstances.

13
skelliousOP:tbl: Civilian•

This is my understanding of it too. I obviously am not aiming to get a definitive answer here as it's a non-UK case.

1
[deleted]•

Of course - my answer was if it happened in the UK, so I agree with you. No clue what the law is in Aus.

2
CatadoraStan:unverified: Trainee Detective Constable (unverified)•

Well, the heel wasn't made for causing injury (except perhaps to the ankle of the wearer). And it wasn't adapted to do so, unless she's sharpened it or something. So, was it intended as a weapon? Did she wear it for the purpose of attacking someone?

Made, adapted, or intended, those are the things that render something and off weap. Sounds like she's just instantly armed herself with a mundane object.

1
ProbieOfficer:verified: Police Officer (verified)•

Sounds like it was intended to be a weapon the second she took it off her foot and stabbed someone in the head with it…

Anything can be an off wep in the right circumstances.

12
CatadoraStan:unverified: Trainee Detective Constable (unverified)•

If she took the shoe off at the moment the violence started, I think that'd be covered under instantaneous arming. If she had the shoe in her bag, and took it out to attack someone with, sure, then it could be an intended weapon.

0
ProvokedTree:tbl: Verified Coward (unverified)•

f she took the shoe off at the moment the violence started, I think that'd be covered under instantaneous arming.

It would still be an offensive weapon - instantaneous weapon is a defence to the offence of possessing an offensive weapon and does nothing to effect its characterisation.
So, if she armed herself to defend herself then she is likely in the clear, but if she did it to initiate an attack it doesn't matter that she only then and there decided to use it as a weapon - it is still an offensive weapon she has no defence to possessing.

3
skelliousOP:tbl: Civilian•

I see. so would the offence just be ABH/GBH? (the victim required stiches due to being stabbed in the head)

1
BlueSmokeBuck:unverified: Police Officer (unverified)•

You would probably be charged with both assault and possession of an offensive weapon. The defendant would have to argue that they instantly armed themselves with the weapon in a moment of self defence. If it wasn't self defence and she just fancied attacking someone then the charge would stand.

2
skelliousOP:tbl: Civilian•

thank you. that's along the lines of my understanding.

1
Shriven:verified: Police Officer (verified)•

The level of assault depends on the level of injury

2
NYX_T_RYX:unverified: Police Officer (unverified)•

The law doesn't say when it is intended as a weapon, and afaik that point hasn't been challenged in case law. I would argue the intent has to exist at the moment of it's use, not just in taking the item in public with you. So in this case I'd say it's still an intended weapon, and you can arrest for it and she can present instant arming as her defence (or not 🤷‍♂️).

But, if you p1 her before then you couldn't arrest her for it because she didn't intend it as a weapon until she instant armed.

Ie if I'm walking to my car, holding my keys, as you often do, someone jumps me and I stab them with my keys, they're still intended as a weapon in that moment, but I have a defence to possession of a weapon by isn't arming.

Equally, if a carpenter has a hammer on his belt and uses it in an instant to defend themselves, it's still quite clearly intended as a weapon, but they never took it out with that purpose in mind.

Ofc, that's just my interpretation of it, and as I say I'm not aware of case law about it, that's not to say there isn't any.

1
Trapezophoron:unverified: Special Constable (unverified)•

it's intended at any point: taking a chair leg out on a walk with you with intention to use it as a weapon - even if's at some point in the future - is an offence. Think of what would happen otherwise: Billy the drug dealer driving around with a baseball bat in his boot would say "well, I wasn't about to play baseball, but I had not yet formed an intention to cause injury to anyone in particular, so it's perfectly lawful". It is nonetheless intended to be used for causing injury to a person - that a particular person, and circumstance, has not yet been chosen does not detract from Billy's true intentions.

"Instant arming" is taking something otherwise totally innocuous and converting it from lawful, to unlawful, and then back to lawful.

1
thanoswastheheroblue:unverified: Police Officer (unverified)•

It wasn’t made as a weapon but she’s held it in her hand as to stab someone with at that moment it’s adapted as a weapon.

Everyday of the week it’s possession of an offensive weapon.

In this case it if it happens over here this I’d be locking up for a POW and potentially an 18/47 assualt depending on injuries.

-1
NYX_T_RYX:unverified: Police Officer (unverified)•

It's not adapted. She's made no change to the item to turn it into a weapon.

Adapted would be "I've put a nail through the heel so it'll hurt more when I hit someone", just using a mundane item with no change is intended.

3