Thompson v Crown Prosecution Service

Factual and Procedural Background

On 21st December 2021, the Appellant was charged with possession in private of a "zombie knife" under section 141(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, alongside charges of threats to kill against his mother and criminal damage. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the weapons and threats charges but guilty to criminal damage, accepting possession of the knife but denying it met the statutory definition of a "zombie knife". The trial dates were adjourned, and the case was eventually heard by a District Judge, who considered whether the knife met the statutory definition. The knife was agreed to have a cutting edge and serrated edge, bore the words "Rambo First Blood Part 1", had a nine-inch blade, and contained items in its handle. The District Judge concluded that the knife fell within the definition of a "zombie knife". Following this, the Appellant pleaded guilty to the weapons offence and was sentenced to a financial penalty. The Appellant then requested a case stated for appeal on the legal question of whether the knife met the statutory definition.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the knife possessed by the Appellant falls within the statutory definition of a "zombie knife" as set out in paragraph 1(s) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, specifically concerning whether the words or images on the knife suggest it is to be used for the purpose of violence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The words "Rambo First Blood Part 1" on the knife do not suggest it is to be used for violence but merely refer to a film title.
• The judge erred by focusing on the word "Rambo" rather than the full phrase, which denotes a specific film, potentially altering the characterisation relevant to the suggestion of violence.
• The association of "Rambo" with violence was not sufficiently notorious to be the subject of judicial notice without further inquiry.
• The dictionary definition relied upon was of limited assistance as it mainly referred to sequels rather than the first film referenced on the knife.
• No evidence was presented about the film itself, making any interpretation of its violent nature subjective and inappropriate for judicial reliance.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge's conclusion was legally correct and the only reasonable decision on the undisputed evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory definition of a "zombie knife" as requiring three characteristics: a cutting edge, a serrated edge, and images or words suggesting the knife is to be used for violence. It was undisputed that the first two characteristics were present. The central issue was whether the words on the knife, "Rambo First Blood Part 1", objectively suggested a violent purpose.

The court explained that the definition requires an objective assessment of what the words or images "suggest," irrespective of the possessor’s subjective intention. The term "suggest" was interpreted broadly to mean bringing to mind violence by association of ideas, including fictional references.

The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the judge erred by focusing on "Rambo" rather than the full phrase, noting the judge had considered the entire wording. The court found that "Rambo" is widely recognised as a violent character, a fact suitable for judicial notice, supported by dictionary definitions describing "Rambo" as characteristically aggressive and violent. The court held that nuances in characterisation across film sequels did not undermine this conclusion.

The court found no error in the judge’s conclusion that the words on the knife suggested a violent purpose, satisfying the statutory definition. The court emphasised that the violent nature of the character and film series was sufficiently notorious to be judicially noticed without requiring further evidence, and that the absence of evidence about the film itself did not invalidate the judge’s decision.

The court acknowledged that other cases might require expert evidence to interpret obscure references but held this was not necessary here given the clarity of the reference.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal, affirming that the knife possessed by the Appellant met the statutory definition of a "zombie knife" under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988.

The direct consequence is that the Appellant’s conviction for possession of a "zombie knife" stands. No new precedent was established beyond the application of the statutory definition to the facts of this case. The ruling clarifies that fictional violent references on knives can satisfy the statutory test and that judicial notice of widely known cultural references is appropriate in such determinations.