Ted has borrowed Clive’s crossbow and has been caught using it a firing range.
Issue
As there is a dangerous weapon, section 2 may apply but must Ted own the crossbow and use it, or is it sufficient for him to merely use it for him to be guilty of the offence under section 2?
Possible resolution of the issue and the rules of statutory interpretation
It is impossible to apply the literal rule as the phrase in section 2 “own
and use
a dangerous weapon” is capable of bearing two meanings. First meaning “and” is
used conjunctively so for there to be an offence both ownership and use must
be established. The second possible meaning is that “and” is
used disjunctively, there being two separate offences, ownership, on one
hand, and use of a dangerous weapon, on the other.
The long title may be consulted. It states that the Act is one to “ban
the possession, use or transfer of dangerous weapons”. The long title
does not suggest a requirement of ownership and use, rather listing alternatives.
Given the purpose of the Act as seen earlier it could be argued that it would
be absurd to give “and” in section 2 a conjunctive meaning. Anyone
using a dangerous weapon could have borrowed it from another to circumvent
the Act, this clearly could not be Parliament’s intention. See the
Mischief rule above.
This interpretation is consistent with the Explanatory Notes. The notes as
has been seen are not part of the Act, nor have they been endorsed by Parliament,
but nonetheless the House of Lords in R (on the application of
S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2004] 1 WLR 2196 has
indicated “in so
far as they cast light on the setting of a statute, and the mischief at which
it is aimed” the notes may be used as an aid to construction of the
statute. So it can be seen that ownership is not a necessary part of using
the weapon.
Some help may be gleaned for the marginal note to section 2, where it is stated, “Offence to use a dangerous weapon”. The marginal note may be used within limits. Upjohn LJ said in Stephens v Cuckfield [1960] 2 QB 373,
“while the marginal note to a section cannot control the language used in the section it is at least permissible to approach a consideration of its general purpose and the mischief at which it is aimed with the note in mind”.
The marginal note clearly envisages use only, so it could be argued that if use of a dangerous weapon is sufficient in itself, “and” is used disjunctively.