John, a teenager who attends woodwork classes, has made a catapult from wood and elastic bands and has been apprehended by the police on waste ground firing at tin cans.
Issue
Section 2 would seem to apply as John owns the catapult and is using it, but is it a “dangerous weapon”?
Possible resolution of the issue and the rules of statutory interpretation
Again we must consider section 3. The weapon made by John is not a crossbow
or a high-velocity catapult, but is it “any other instrument manufactured
to fire projectiles”? Taking the phrase out of context it could be
argued literally the catapult is an instrument manufactured to fire projectiles.
However, the words placed in context may be read differently. Using the Ejusdem generis rule where general words follow specific words, which form a class, the general words are to be interpreted in the light of the specific words. It could be argued that crossbow and high-velocity catapult form a class of high powered weapons that “any other instrument manufactured to fire projectiles” must be read in this light.
Additionally, even if merely firing projectiles was sufficient to bring John’s catapult within the meaning of dangerous weapons in this sense, has the catapult been “manufactured”? The Oxford English Dictionary defines “manufacture” in this way: “the action or process of making articles or material (in modern use, on a large scale) by the application of physical labour or mechanical power…”. This does not seem conclusive of the issue.
Further assistance may be sought in Hansard, subject to the limits placed
on the use of such by Pepper v Hart. During the Parliamentary passage of
the Bill the minister in charge of the bill stated that children’s
catapults were not covered. While not wholly clear this gives some indication
of what is to be included within the category of dangerous weapons.