D [2019] EWCA Crim 45
A prosecution appeal from a ruling in respect of a count on the indictment of possession of a bladed article. The judge ruled the item fell within the definition of a ‘folding pocketknife’ and so was excluded from the prohibition by virtue of s139(3) as the cutting edge was less than 3 inches long.
The item in question was a folding cut-throat razor, the cutting edge was less than two inches and there was no locking mechanism. The defendant said he had it for work as an apprentice barber and the defence submitted it was not an article falling within s139. The prosecution said it was a razor and therefore not a pocket knife. The judge ruled that as a matter of common sense it was a bladed article and in the absence of any authority to the contrary it fell with the definition of folding pocket knife and as the edge was less than 3 inches it was excluded from the prohibition.
On appeal the prosecution argued that on its plain meaning a cut-throat razor is not a knife and therefore not a pocketknife and that the judge erred in his approach. It was further argued that Parliament could not have intended to justify possession of such an item in a public place and invited the court to apply the “mischief” approach to interpretation of the statutory provision. The defence submitted that if there was any doubt as to the meaning of a provision imposing criminal liability it should apply the meaning most favourable to the accused. Also, the razor fell within the definition as (1) it had a cutting blade of less than 3 inches, (2) it could not be locked in place and (3) the blade was immediately foldable.
Held: “the issue here is whether the article can be properly regarded as a pocketknife. In our view it plainly cannot. A pocketknife is not an apt description of a cut-throat razor. The items have distinct characteristics, as reflected both in their descriptive names and in their functions. A razor is an article of sufficient sharpness to be used to shave. That would not normally be done by a pocketknife.” The ruling was wrong, and an order made for proceedings to be resumed.