A few legal pointers on this case, which is attracting a lot of attention.
As ever with jury verdicts, we don’t get reasons (something I’ve whinged about elsewhere), so we won’t ever know the jury’s thought process, but the following legal principles might be relevant: [THREAD]
As ever with jury verdicts, we don’t get reasons (something I’ve whinged about elsewhere), so we won’t ever know the jury’s thought process, but the following legal principles might be relevant: [THREAD]
“Acquitted of attempted murder, convicted of wounding with intent”. Attempted murder is very hard to prove. Proving that someone intended to kill, rather than seriously hurt, is a high hurdle (the prosecution has to make the jury sure). By contrast...
To prove wounding with intent, the prosecution need prove that the defendant intended to cause really serious harm (GBH). This is, generally, for obvious reasons, easier to prove.
Lots of people ask how attacking somebody with a machete can equate to a not guilty verdict of having an offensive weapon.
The answer likely lies in the complicated and counterintuitive way in which this offence works in law.
The answer likely lies in the complicated and counterintuitive way in which this offence works in law.
Put very simply, just because you have an offensive weapon and use it to cause injury, doesn’t necessarily mean you are guilty of an offence of having an offensive weapon in a public place.
As I say - counterintuitive. I have every sympathy with people who are confused.
As I say - counterintuitive. I have every sympathy with people who are confused.
Here’s how I think it’s probably gone:
There are 3 ways that something can be an offensive weapon:
1. It’s “offensive per se” - i.e. it has no lawful purpose and is designed to cause injury. Like a knuckleduster.
There are 3 ways that something can be an offensive weapon:
1. It’s “offensive per se” - i.e. it has no lawful purpose and is designed to cause injury. Like a knuckleduster.
2. It’s adapted to cause injury - eg a bottle broken so it has sharp edges.
3. It’s not (1) or (2) but you intend to cause injury to a person with it (eg a baseball bat).
In this trial, it looks as if the machete was treated as in Category 3.
3. It’s not (1) or (2) but you intend to cause injury to a person with it (eg a baseball bat).
In this trial, it looks as if the machete was treated as in Category 3.
To prove a weapon is offensive under this category, the prosecution have to prove that the defendant had it *intending to use it to cause injury*.
Now here’s where it gets messy.
Now here’s where it gets messy.
If you have a potentially offensive weapon with you for a lawful purpose (eg for work), and you then grab it and use it offensively to injure, long-established case law says you are not guilty of having an offensive weapon in a public place. (The “instantaneous arming” rule). 
In the Rodwan case, his defence appeared to be that he had the machete in his van for a gardening job.
Therefore, although the jury clearly found that he did go on to use it offensively, they may not have been sure that he intended to do so before the moment arose.
Therefore, although the jury clearly found that he did go on to use it offensively, they may not have been sure that he intended to do so before the moment arose.
As I say, if you think this is an odd area of the law, I’m not going to argue with you.
But the principle of “instantaneous arming” might explain why the jury reached what appears at first glance to be a bizarre verdict.
But the principle of “instantaneous arming” might explain why the jury reached what appears at first glance to be a bizarre verdict.
Obviously anyone with greater knowledge of the case or a better understanding of the law should correct me if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick. But that, FWIW, is my best guess at what’s gone on in this case. [ENDS]
POST SCRIPT: What has been reported is inevitably a snippet of the evidence put before the jury. Unless you were in court to see it all, your opinion on whether the verdict was “right” or not is, I’m afraid, pretty meaningless.
FURTHER POST-SCRIPT: For the avoidance of doubt, it’s not normally lawful to go around with a machete. This alleged offence *could* have been charged as having a bladed article in a public place, rather than having an offensive weapon in a public place.
Having a bladed article is much easier to prove than an offensive weapon charge, as the prosecution don’t need to prove an intention to use it to cause injury. Just that it’s a blade that’s not a 3-inch folding pocket knife.
The burden is then on the Defendanf to prove that he had it for a “good reason or lawful authority”. This is not easy to prove - the test is strict. Usually in knife cases I advise the CPS to charge this offence rather than an offensive weapon. Both carry the same max sentence.
It may not have made a difference in this case. Not knowing full details makes it hard to second guess, and it may have been that the jury would have found that he did have a good reason for carrying it.
But don’t think that it’s generally lawful to carry a machete. It’s not.
But don’t think that it’s generally lawful to carry a machete. It’s not.
ANOTHER THING: Sorry to add to this, but I’m receiving common confused comments.
The acquittal on the offensive weapon charge will not make any meaningful difference to the sentence for the wounding with intent. He will be sentenced for an assault using a dangerous weapon.
The acquittal on the offensive weapon charge will not make any meaningful difference to the sentence for the wounding with intent. He will be sentenced for an assault using a dangerous weapon.
