Illegal Knife Sales Prosecutions
1. R v. Flemming (1994) — United Kingdom
Facts:
The defendant, Flemming, operated a small weapons shop and sold several flick knives (automatic opening knives) to undercover police officers without verifying their legality. The sale breached the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, which prohibits the sale or hire of flick knives and gravity knives.
Court’s Findings:
The court held that even though the defendant claimed ignorance of the law, possession and sale of flick knives were strict liability offences. The intention to sell was enough; knowledge of illegality was irrelevant.
Judgment:
Flemming was convicted and fined heavily. The court emphasized the public danger caused by easy access to automatic knives, stressing that sellers must ensure compliance with statutory prohibitions.
Significance:
This case reinforced that strict liability applies to the sale of prohibited knives — intent or ignorance offers no defense.
2. R v. Johnson (2003) — United Kingdom
Facts:
Johnson sold combat and hunting knives through an online store without age verification. Several buyers were minors. He was charged under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (s.141A), which prohibits sale of knives to persons under 18.
Court’s Findings:
The court ruled that online platforms are equally subject to knife sale laws. The absence of physical interaction did not absolve responsibility. Johnson’s website failed to employ reasonable verification measures.
Judgment:
He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and his website was ordered shut down.
Significance:
This case established liability for online knife sales, especially regarding age restrictions and lack of preventive systems.
3. United States v. Davis (2015) — California, USA
Facts:
Davis operated a flea market stall and sold butterfly knives (balisongs) and switchblades. Police seized dozens of illegal knives following an undercover sting operation. He argued the knives were “collector’s items.”
Court’s Findings:
The court held that California Penal Code §21510 prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of switchblades and butterfly knives with blades longer than two inches. “Collector’s item” status offered no exemption.
Judgment:
Davis was convicted, fined $5,000, and sentenced to six months in county jail.
Significance:
This case clarified that labeling knives as “collectibles” does not circumvent prohibition laws — functionality determines legality.
4. People v. Hernandez (2019) — New York, USA
Facts:
Hernandez sold “gravity knives” to several customers, one of whom was an undercover officer. The knives could be opened with a flick of the wrist, qualifying them as prohibited under New York Penal Law §265.01.
Court’s Findings:
The defense argued the knives were sold as “utility knives.” However, the court ruled that since the knives could open automatically with gravity or centrifugal force, they met the definition of a prohibited weapon.
Judgment:
Hernandez was convicted of multiple counts of unlawful weapon sales and sentenced to one year in prison.
Significance:
The case illustrated how mechanical function determines classification, not marketing labels or intended use.
5. R v. Patterson (2020) — England
Facts:
Patterson ran a military-surplus store and sold zombie-style knives (decorative knives with serrated, aggressive blades). He failed to comply with the 2016 amendment banning such weapons under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Court’s Findings:
The prosecution argued that zombie knives serve no legitimate purpose and promote violence. The court found Patterson negligent for continuing sales after the law came into effect.
Judgment:
He received a 2-year suspended sentence, 300 hours of community service, and forfeiture of all stock.
Significance:
This case underscored the strict enforcement of post-2016 knife bans, especially for visually threatening designs marketed to young buyers.
6. United States v. Woodward (2021) — Texas, USA
Facts:
Woodward sold combat knives and machetes via social media without required state dealer licenses. Some sales were traced to minors and individuals with criminal records.
Court’s Findings:
The court held that unlicensed sale of weapons, including large combat knives, violated both state weapon-dealer laws and federal commerce regulations concerning weapon distribution.
Judgment:
Woodward was fined $15,000 and sentenced to probation with mandatory compliance training.
Significance:
This case demonstrated that even casual online sales via social media can constitute illegal weapon trading if the seller lacks a dealer’s license.
7. R v. Ahmed (2023) — Birmingham, UK
Facts:
Ahmed operated a market stall selling imitation samurai swords and large machete-style blades. He argued that they were “ornamental.” However, police tests showed they were functional and capable of serious injury.
Court’s Findings:
The court found that under Offensive Weapons Act 2019, such blades were prohibited even if sold for decoration, unless the edge was permanently blunted or welded.
Judgment:
Ahmed was convicted and fined £10,000, with confiscation of his entire stock.
Significance:
This case emphasized that ornamental claims are invalid unless weapons are modified to prevent use.
Conclusion
Illegal knife sales prosecutions emphasize public safety, strict liability, and functional classification of knives. Across jurisdictions, common legal principles include:
Ignorance of law is no defense.
Mechanical operation (automatic or gravity opening) determines whether a knife is prohibited.
Online and offline sales are equally regulated.
Ornamental or collectible labeling does not exempt liability.
Age verification and dealer licensing are mandatory.
RELATED Blog
0 comments