Birth of the Offence - Carrying a bladed weapon in a public place without lawful excuse –

updated 11 August 2010 – by former Assistant Commissioner Greg Early

It was probably 1996 when Superintendent Jack Richard, who then commanded City Division, which is the largest in the state, approached me one morning with the remark 'Boss, we have to do something about these bastards carrying bladed weapons in the mall'. When following up with him about his remark he mentioned that his then-Juvenile Aid Bureau (JAB) was constantly speaking to young people in the mall—many of Asian descent—and that they were finding that they were carrying bladed weapons—some up in the meat cleaver category.

Jack offered to arrange a demonstration for me of the weapons 'seized' so far. This he did rather quickly because of the interest I had displayed in his remarks. Soon after, Detective Sergeant Dave Moore (another Dave Moore), then-officer in charge of the City JAB, arrived in my office and quickly threw out on the carpet a sheet of plastic which had had pockets made on it.

From memory these pockets contained about twenty bladed weapons of various forms. They were all capable of doing massive injury and some were, in fact, meat cleavers. Dave could explain very quickly who had possessed the weapons and also the circumstances under which they were seized.

Again, from memory, I think I raised some correspondence to the Commissioner's Office about this problem because at that time, the only offence was to have possession of a bladed weapon eighty millimetres or more in length in a night club. (I later became aware of the reason for the eighty millimetres and that was when the proposed amendment was being discussed by coalition members of Parliament, then in government, a member's pocket-knife measured seventy-nine millimetres and that was why it was made an offence of eighty millimetres or more.)

Soon after I was sitting beside then-Minister for Police, Russell Cooper, at a function in the Queen Street Mall and I mentioned that there was a need to do something about this problem. I offered to arrange a demonstration of the weapons seen by me and he agreed. Some time elapsed but the demonstration was not requested.

One day subsequently, however, the full Senior Executive Conference met the Police Union Executive in the presence of the Minister for Police. Then-Deputy Commissioner Bill Aldrich knew of my attempt to get something done and he asked me to arrange a demonstration of the weapons at this meeting, which I did. Before the demonstration commenced, Russell Cooper called out to me 'Greg I haven't forgotten the visit to Parliament House. See Frank and arrange it'. (Frank was former Assistant Commissioner Frank O'Gorman who then worked for the Minister.)

Needless to say, I saw Frank and the demonstration was arranged for a joint party meeting (a meeting of all Liberal and National Party Members and chaired by then-Premier, Rob Borbidge). Commissioner Jim O'Sullivan and I spoke first and then Dave put on his display which was quite impressive. Several members spoke for and against the amendment sought.

Two members (who are no longer in parliament) spoke against it quite vigorously and mentioned the onus which would be placed on a citizen to prove that he had a knife lawfully; also the possibility of zealous police officers accosting farmers and electricians who happened to be walking through a public place with a knife on their belt. (I had picked up that it was doubtful if the amendment sought would go through because there had been a tendency to go away from putting the onus of proof on the defendant like say the now-repealed Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act had done for many years.) One of these two was the fellow with the seventy-nine millimetre knife mentioned previously and the other had had an experience in a western town—the base of his electorate—of a former traffic officer becoming over zealous and issuing numerous tickets for seat-belt offences.

We were given so much time with the members and we then left and waited outside with representatives of the media who obviously had been summoned to hear of the progress on the amendment. We waited and waited and eventually one member who came outside for some reason told us that the debate was quite heated about the subject. When the Minister (Russell Cooper) eventually came out, he said that four of his colleagues had problems with the amendment but that he was confident that given time he would be able to get it through. He spoke to the media in moderated tones to what had been expected.

My recollection is that at this time the government had a majority of one on the occasions when an Independent Member voted with it. Also I believe that this member used to be ‘sounded out’ on proposed amendments and that if he or she was not in favour of the amendments, they would not be introduced.

Soon after this meeting I spoke to then-Opposition Spokesman for Police, Tom Barton (later to become Police Minister in the Labour Government) on a plane going to Townsville and he mentioned that he personally supported such an amendment.

Some time later I became aware that the amendment had been made and I was quite pleased to learn of that happening.

For many years now I have thought about finding out how the amendment got through Parliament and whether the Opposition at the time voted in favour of it. In 2010 I got hold of some Hansard extracts and now trace the amendment:

 On 5 March 1998 the Honourable Russell Cooper, Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister for Racing, moved that leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend a number of Acts affecting the powers and responsibilities of police officers and for other purposes. The motion was agreed to and the Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill were read a first time. (The Bill became the Police and Other Legislation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1998).

 The Minister then moved that the Bill be read a second time. He then spoke at length in support of the Bill. Part 6 of the Bill made various amendments to the Weapons Act 1990. In the explanatory notes mention is made of section 51 (Possession of a knife in night clubs) ‘being omitted and replaced by a new section that better reflects community and police concerns over the increasing use of knives to commit offences’. The notes continued: ‘The section provides police officers with authority to prosecute a person who is in possession, or carrying, a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse. This is achieved by defining the term ‘knife’ and includes a reasonable excuse section which contains examples which are not meant to be definitive. Issues to have regard to when considering what is a reasonable excuse are also identified. The section also provides that the possession or carriage of a knife for self defence is not a reasonable excuse’.

 During the Minister’s address to Parliament he said that the very important section ‘has been developed in response to a very serious problem in our community – that is, the carrying of knives in a public place with the intention of using them to cause fear or harm. This Bill seeks to address this very worrying trend through the creation of a new offence in section 51 of unlawfully having possession of a knife in a public place’.

 He also said that ‘police are currently powerless to remove weapons such as machetes and stilettos from people gathered in public places who clearly intend to cause trouble. This legislation is a long overdue move to give police the powers they need to prevent knife-related offences before they happen’.

 On 17 March 1998 the Honourable Tom Barton, who was then spokesperson for Police, Corrective Services and Racing and later became Minister for Police, etc, addressed Parliament in relation to clause 31 in the Bill which related to the new section 51 in the Weapons Act. He said ‘I turn to clause 31 which relates to possession of a knife in a public place. The Opposition supports this amendment. ... the collection of confiscated knives of the Police Service is, quite frankly, frightening. Machetes, flick knives and even sharpened screwdrivers can be dangerous weapons.’

 The Police and Other Legislation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1998 was assented to on 26 March 1998.

This is an example of working police speaking up so that their senior officers can take matters forward with a view to amendments being made to the law for the good of the community. Also, it is worthy of mention that the amendment did not occur over night. It took many months and several reminders to headquarters, some of which were not always welcomed. But persistence paid off and the rest is part of history.

While I was told in the early stages of seeking this amendment that there was little chance of the onus of proof being shifted to a defendant, it is ironical that it got through, in effect, in the manner which we intended in the first place. Since this amendment was made, I have seen adverse publicity about the carrying of bladed weapons in public places but have taken a thankful sigh of relief that when able to I listened to two of my loyal and effective officers  and did something about an out-of-hand situation.

Superintendent Jack Richard was an excellent all-round police officer. He always had a good rapport with all of his troops and was renowned for speaking up on their behalf. I trust that he is enjoying his well-deserved retirement. He can rest easy with my feeling of him and that is that he was always a ‘copper's copper’.