We recently received an inquiry regarding wooden batons and the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.
This legislation came into effect on the 14th of July 2021. It brought about changes to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a subject we’ve previously covered.
Specifically, we were asked about Section 66, Part 4, Annex A – list of offensive weapons, which now explicitly identifies the following as an offensive weapon:
q) a straight, side-handled or friction-lock truncheon (sometimes known as a baton)
This would suggest that a ‘straight truncheon’ or a ‘straight baton’ is now inherently considered an offensive weapon, a distinction not previously established.
However, the phrasing used here is somewhat ambiguous and subject to interpretation. What exactly constitutes a straight truncheon? Is this one?
If I were a legal counsel, I might argue that it lacks a straight edge.
The legal definition of “truncheon” or “baton” is not exhaustive. As with much legal language, it’s open to interpretation – a reason we have courts (and admittedly, when discussing definitions, our politicians, police, and judges struggle to define even basic concepts like ‘woman’ these days).
In English, one might propose that a “straight truncheon” denotes a type of baton or club with a rigid, straight shaft lacking curvature or ergonomic design. It typically does not include a side handle or a friction-lock mechanism. The term “straight” emphasises the absence of angled or curved features in its construction.
A vintage wooden truncheon, such as those used by the police, does possess an ergonomic design and curved features.
The terms “truncheon” and “baton” are widely interchangeable. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 does not define what constitutes a truncheon or baton, suggesting these terms are synonymous. However, are they?
The terms “truncheon” and “baton” are often used interchangeably and can refer to similar types of impact weapons. However, there may be some subtle distinctions in their usage and design depending on the context.
“Batons” encompass a broader category of impact weapons with varied purposes. They can be employed for strikes, joint locks, or defensive techniques, with their design tailored accordingly.
The Act appears to use the term “baton” exclusively concerning friction-lock or telescopic batons. The phrase “friction-lock truncheon (sometimes known as a baton)” suggests this by using “truncheon” singularly after “friction lock”, with “baton” added for clarity in brackets.
This constitutes a friction-lock baton.
One might deem this a straight truncheon. English is indeed a curious language, isn’t it?
The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are distinct pieces of legislation in the United Kingdom, each addressing separate aspects of criminal law. While the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 introduced new measures concerning offensive weapons, it does not necessarily annul or amend the entirety of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That legislation outlawed: ”
- (j)the weapon sometimes known as a “telescopic truncheon”, being a truncheon which extends automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to its handle;”
When new legislation is introduced, it can either repeal or amend existing legislation, or it can introduce new measures that work alongside existing law. Sometimes, there may be overlapping provisions or disparities between different laws, necessitating interpretation by the courts. In this instance, the 2019 section (q) revision appears to be retroactively included in the 1988 act.
Typical exemptions are outlined in legislation. For example, specific provisions are made for museums, galleries, theatrical performances, and the production of films and television programmes. Nor can you be prosecuted for possessing antique items. It could be argued that a replica of an antique item should be treated as an antique. What if a replica item was purchased as a gift but believed to be an exempt antique by the recipient? Again, that would be a matter for court interpretation.
Why would someone seek out a replica of an antique item specifically for use as an offensive weapon? It defies logic, doesn’t it? Surely, there are far more effective weapons available if one intends to assault someone. The internet is replete with all manner of nasty weapons for those with nefarious intent. A vintage truncheon might not be my first choice.
Is a rolling pin a straight baton? One might argue it is if someone were using it to strike you. Not if someone were using it to bake a cake. Similarly, is a truncheon a weapon if owned by a collector, enthusiast, actor, or museum curator? We would argue not.
What if it were used in role-play, re-enactment, fancy dress, or for educational purposes? We discuss the public carrying of truncheons in >this article<. Many of the innocuous reasons for carrying one mentioned there would appear more than sufficient for simply possessing one too.
Many police forces now purchase our replica truncheons to have engraved and given to officers on retirement. Here’s one of our truncheons made for marketing purposes using the name Gene Hunt from TV’s Life on Mars.
Would owning that make you a criminal? By the letter of the law, it might. Yet many retired police officers purchase our truncheons for nostalgic reasons – some even email us to praise their authenticity upon receipt.
Of course, in applying the law, police officers and prosecutors must exercise common sense. Nothing is entirely black and white. If it were, numerous former police officers who either retained a truncheon for nostalgia or were gifted one upon retirement would be subject to prosecution. And that would be absurd, wouldn’t it?
The law is a complex and nuanced system open to interpretation, rather than being followed strictly to the letter. This complexity arises from the inherent nature of legal language, which can be broad or ambiguous at times, allowing for multiple interpretations. Consider, for instance, a knife. While it can be used as a weapon to inflict harm, it is also commonly employed in daily life for practical purposes like cutting food. Similarly, a baseball bat can serve as an offensive weapon, yet its primary purpose is for baseball. These examples underscore the importance of contextualizing an object’s use when interpreting the law.
When the law is not crystal clear, it becomes imperative for law enforcement and prosecutors to apply common sense and adopt a reasonable interpretation. They must consider the specific circumstances and intent behind an individual’s actions and assess whether a genuine threat or harm is present. For example, when encountering someone in possession of an old-style police truncheon, it’s crucial to determine whether the individual intends to use it as a weapon or if it’s merely a nostalgic item devoid of harmful intent. This approach ensures that the law is applied fairly and justly, taking into account the broader context and striking a balance between public safety and individual liberties.
In conclusion, the interpretation of the law demands a nuanced understanding of intent, context, and practical implications. By exercising common sense and considering specific circumstances, law enforcement and prosecutors can navigate the intricacies of the law, ensuring that justice is served and maintaining a fair and balanced legal system.
As evident from this article and others on this site, the subject of weapons, their definition, and their use in self-defence is a grey area open to much interpretation, particularly concerning vintage police truncheons.
Our advice is to remain on the right side of the law. To do so, one must possess a reasonable grasp of the law and its intent. For a comprehensive overview, we recommend reading all the articles on this site, as no single article can cover every aspect of the topic.
As they say on the television programme Law and Order: In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime, and the Crown Prosecutors who prosecute the offenders.
It’s essential to remember that police officers are not lawyers or judges. The ultimate determinations regarding legality, reasonable excuse, establishing intent, and other relevant factors lie with the courts, and the courts alone. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) typically only proceeds to court if they believe they have a strong case.
In the United States and many other countries, the possession of wooden truncheons for self-defence or other purposes is entirely legal in numerous states.
If you want a traditional British police-style wooden truncheon, we sell a replica of a 1960s Leeds City Police one with a leather lanyard at a very reasonable price (they’re so good, even police forces buy them). Click the button below to find out more.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. This website contains links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser; this site does not recommend or endorse the contents of the third-party sites.
Readers of this website should contact their solicitor to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual solicitor can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website authors, contributors, members and their respective employers.
The views expressed at, or through, this site are those of the individual authors writing in their individual capacities only. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this site are hereby expressly disclaimed. The content on this posting is provided “as is;” no representations are made that the content is error-free.