Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
Would he?
How are you in a position to say that?
I was thinking of cases such as this one:
Retired soldier arrested for taking tiny knife on train - Get Hampshire
It's hardly unknown for the police to be... somewhat zealous in their application and interpretation of the law regarding knives, shall we say? In addition the offences for which it's suggested he was arrested are not specifically aviation-related.
Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
The only advice I'd give is:
(1) Wait for the facts to emerge.
It may then be possible to express an opinion about why this incident, involving a 61 year old airline pilot about to board his flight, resulted in an arrest.
(2) Don't attach any weight to what is said by posters playing barrack-room lawyers.
FL
I was thinking in particular of your view of the 'reasonable excuse' bit of the law in general, not in respect of the (unknown) facts of this particular case.
If a carpet-fitter is stopped carrying a knife on Oxford Street on his lunch break, the police *might* ask 'OK, but why are you carrying it *now*, why didn't you leave it at your job site?' - and many similar situations could be imagined; why isn't it in your toolbox / in your car / in your shed / in your kitchen would be the questions.
But when you're taking the knife with you on a trip, leaving the country, that's a pretty absolute 'reasonable excuse' defence, is it not? 'I have to have it with me because if I left it back at the hotel I couldn't take it home'. You see where I'm coming from? Stopping a traveller is pretty much the same situation as stopping someone on their way home from the knife shop; the 'reasonable excuse' test in such situations relates entirely to the journey and the destination, not to the occupation or intended use of the knife (although obviously if the police can establish that the knife was being carried *with nefarious intent*, that's 'offensive weapon' whatever the other circumstances, I think?)
Note that at no point am I making a distinction between having the knife on their person, in their carry-on, or in their checked baggage; the law doesn't make any distinction, simply having the knife in their possession and control is what matters, I believe?