TRESPASSING WITH A WEAPON OF OFFENCE (Hansard, 13 July 1977)

§ Miss Richardson
I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 7, line 32, leave out from 'above' to end of line 35 and insert: '"offensive weapon" means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we shall take Amendment No. 53, in page 7, line 34, after first 'person', insert: 'or for causing injury to property'.

§ Miss Richardson
The purpose of the amendment is to define "offensive weapon" as far as it is possible to do so. During our earlier debates it was suggested that an offensive weapon might be a spanner or a cane. In an idle moment I thought that it might be a good idea to try to devise a definition, because the words "offensive weapon" are so capable of misunderstanding.
In Committee I used the example of a ball of string. If somebody found a ball of string, could it not be interpreted as an offensive weapon since it could be used to bind somebody? I use that example to show that what might appear to be innocent items could be used by mischievous persons or could be misunderstood to be offensive weapons when they were not so intended. I do not know whether the definition in the amendment will be regarded as reasonable, but it would seem to constitute a description of what an offensive weapon might be.

§ Mr. John
I must tell my hon. Friend that the drafting of the amendment is thoroughly defective. She seeks to define the phrase "offensive weapon", whereas there is no mention of offensive weapons in the Bill. The phrase used in the Bill 711 is "weapon of offence". Therefore, my hon. Friend's wording is unacceptable.
In using the term "offensive weapon" my hon. Friend is going back to earlier legislation, but we have taken our definition from the Theft Act 1968, which is a more modern definition. It defines "weapon of offence" in exactly the same way as we have adopted. It has caused no difficulty in establishing what is a weapon of defence, nor, in my experience, has it led to any fanciful or exaggerated interpretation. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press her amendment.