Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Monday, 8 January 2018

DRIVING JUSTICE WITH HANDBRAKE ON

An apparently simple case last week at Teesside Magistrates Court has left me thinking. It involved the defendant being found guilty for the second time of carrying a weapon and receiving a suspended custodial sentence.  What set what`s left of my little grey cells firing off in all directions was the conclusion reached by the bench that the knife in question was accepted as being for trade purposes; namely for decorating but also an "offensive weapon". Whilst I was active such a defence (for trade) was an acceptable defence against the charge. Has that changed?  The magistrates seem to be in two minds on this matter and have effectively driven the judicial vehicle with the hand brake applied. There is no mention in the report if his advocate was considering an appeal. Make up your mind after you read all about it here.

2 comments:

  1. When I was a Magistrate I and my bench would require clear evidence that a tool that could be used to injure somebody was to be used for their trade. Tools inside a tradesman van, tools in a tool bag or box, cooks knives in a cooks tool role or evidence that he/she was taking it out in public for a sound reason. Fishermen knives in a fishing box, divers knife with diving kit, just purchased .. receipt.
    A lock knife hidden in a bush for trade purposes, I would take a lot of convincing.
    Is it any surprise that DJ(M) are slowly taking over all lower court cases other than the dross of motoring, tv licensing, fare evasion, etc.
    This is a sad reflection on those who claim to represent Magistrates'

    ReplyDelete
  2. Given that he admitted the offence, there can't be an appeal and his likely story would have been considered only in mitigation.

    ReplyDelete