Fred, who owns an ornamental crossbow, has been told by the police that he contravenes the Dangerous Weapons Act 2006.
Issue
The first question to be asked is a factual one, is the crossbow capable of firing bolts? The Act in the section 3 definition of a dangerous weapon refers to a crossbow but does it include purely ornamental ie non-functioning weapons?
Additionally, is it an offence to own a dangerous weapon without using it?
Possible resolution of the issue and the rules of statutory interpretation
Lord Diplock in Duport Steel v Sirs [1980 1 WLR 142 said of the literal rule:
“The role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was and giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.”
Using the literal rule it may be argued that the Dangerous Weapons Act 2006 covers all crossbows as stated in section 3. So it does not matter that the crossbow does not work.
Alternatively, it could be argued that the mischief behind the Act was to
prevent the use and potential use of dangerous weapons. See the approach
of the Divisional Court in Smith v Hughes [1960] 2 All ER 859. So a non-functioning
crossbow would not fall within the mischief to the Act. The long title may
be referred to in cases of ambiguity; as there is uncertainty here does the
long title give any guidance? It lists the possession, use or transfer of
dangerous weapons and it could be argued that it in specifying “use” it
envisages a functioning crossbow.