Did you mean "Alan", Spiral?
You are of course correct:- logic does not win in court; what wins in court is a damned good lawyer.
That's what courts are about. The defense of a person by a professional defender.
The example you give of a lock blade knife being considered to be a fixed blade knife seems to me to be possibly correct. However, it would depend upon the circumstances, the wording of the charge, and upon the defence. If it were open it would be a fixed blade knife; if it were closed it would be a knife capable of becoming a fixed blade knife. I believe any competent barrister could defend possession of a closed knife that upon opening was capable of becoming a fixed blade knife.
In New South Wales, we have similar, and perhaps even more draconian legislation in respect of knives.However, in our case there is a clause that provides an inbuilt defense. If you are in possession of a knife in a public place, and have a legal reason to be in possession of that knife, you are permitted to have the knife.Written into the Act, a legal reason, or excuse, is that you may be in possession of the knife for the preparation and consumption of food.
In respect of the sword definition, yes, you can expect it to be badly enforced. Police are not experts in edged weaponry. Their job is to enforce the law as they see it. It is up to the courts to establish how that law should be interpreted.
So, when somebody with a defensible case does get charged, everybody in the country with a stake in this matter needs to give him financial support so that he can hire the best solicitor and barrister available. Then you have the opportunity to establish the precedents upon your own terms.
|