Sharma v Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] EWHC 3330 (Admin)
The question on this appeal was whether a knife was a folding pocketknife within the meaning of s139 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The knife in question had a blade less than 3 inches long but was capable of locking the blade in position (by way of overlapping plastic hinged panels and small moulded connectors which snapped together). The lower court concluded that it was not a folding pocket knife within the meaning of s139(2) and (3) and explained in Harris v DPP, simply because one part of its locking mechanism operated by a process of unfolding; and accordingly held that it was an article to which s139(1) applied.
The article, in this case, was a credit card size and shape, the blade folded out and could be snapped in place by folding the card to form a handle which snapped into place with poppers. The defence submitted that although the blade was not immediately foldable the knife as a whole was. Further, that there was no material difference between the amount of pressure required to unsnap the handle and the amount of pressure required in the case of an ordinary Swiss army knife, which is a folding pocketknife. It was also argued that the knife was weak from front to back, like an ordinary pocketknife and unlike a lock knife.
Held: the blade was not immediately foldable so does not satisfy the established test of a folding pocket knife, even accepting the point that it was not very robustly secured in place. The question does not turn on the strength or otherwise of the relevant mechanism, it is straightforward and turns on whether the blade of the knife is immediately foldable at all times simply by applying pressure to the blade. The court was correct to conclude that it was not a folding knife within the meaning of s139(2) and (3) and it was an article to which s139(1) applied. Appeal dismissed.