ChatterBank0 min ago
Selling A Knife To A Minor
20 Answers
A member of staff has sold a knife to a minor without challenging their age.
Does the law stipulate that the store or that staff member face court action?
Does the law stipulate that the store or that staff member face court action?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nicelander. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.no the law does not stipulate....
but they could
https:/ /www.ha ringey. gov.uk/ busines s/licen sing-an d-regul ations/ trading -standa rds/tra ding-st andards -age-re stricte d-sales
scroll down to knives
I mean if it has happened, then wait and see....
but they could
https:/
scroll down to knives
I mean if it has happened, then wait and see....
Quote:
"( 1 )Any person who sells to a person under the age of eighteen years an article to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to—
(a)any knife, knife blade or razor blade,
(b)any axe, and
(c)any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed and which is made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person"
[Section 141a, Criminal Justice Act 1988 (as amended)]
https:/ /www.le gislati on.gov. uk/ukpg a/1988/ 33/sect ion/141 A
So it's the person who makes the sale who is guilty of an offence.
Eddie's assumption that "they looked older enough" would be a valid defence is incorrect. In order to avoid being convicted it would be necessary for the person who sold the knife "to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence". In order to achieve that he would need to ask for proof of age (such as a passport or other form of age-related photographic ID) and to carefully check that the photograph matched that of the purchaser.
"( 1 )Any person who sells to a person under the age of eighteen years an article to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to—
(a)any knife, knife blade or razor blade,
(b)any axe, and
(c)any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed and which is made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person"
[Section 141a, Criminal Justice Act 1988 (as amended)]
https:/
So it's the person who makes the sale who is guilty of an offence.
Eddie's assumption that "they looked older enough" would be a valid defence is incorrect. In order to avoid being convicted it would be necessary for the person who sold the knife "to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence". In order to achieve that he would need to ask for proof of age (such as a passport or other form of age-related photographic ID) and to carefully check that the photograph matched that of the purchaser.
Thankyou for your responses. It's just my best friend was suspended from work today.
He works for a well known high street store. Failing to challenge the minor because it was busy he was entrapped by Trading Standards and Police. Just wanted to know if he must face prosecution or the store?. I have advised him to resign as I believe he will be dismissed for the incident. Just very worried.
He works for a well known high street store. Failing to challenge the minor because it was busy he was entrapped by Trading Standards and Police. Just wanted to know if he must face prosecution or the store?. I have advised him to resign as I believe he will be dismissed for the incident. Just very worried.
deffo wait and see.
I would not resign as a pre-amble thingey - jobs arent that easy to come by
it might have been helpful to say he had been engtrapped ( coz that is how they knew )
still wait and see
surprisingly your main question is not Law ( yes they can) but can they and do they
no - they may not
they have to decide on policy, time and cost and outcome
( not every naughty act results in a prosecution altho the police may like you to think ( knife crime etc) that it does)
wait and see
I would not resign as a pre-amble thingey - jobs arent that easy to come by
it might have been helpful to say he had been engtrapped ( coz that is how they knew )
still wait and see
surprisingly your main question is not Law ( yes they can) but can they and do they
no - they may not
they have to decide on policy, time and cost and outcome
( not every naughty act results in a prosecution altho the police may like you to think ( knife crime etc) that it does)
wait and see
It is odd that you appear to have advised your pal to resign and THEN ask us for advice.
There may be extenuating circumstances that caused him to act the way he did, pressures, worries at home or any number of things.
If the employer is made aware of them, the incident may be classed as misconduct rather than gross misconduct and it could mean the difference between a (final) written warning and dismissal.
It is wrong to say it was entrapment since, as far as I'm aware, the tests normally involve those who are clearly underage and the sale would have occurred regardless of Trading Standards' involvement.
Companies often use "mystery shoppers" to test customer service and that would not be entrapment, would it?
There may be extenuating circumstances that caused him to act the way he did, pressures, worries at home or any number of things.
If the employer is made aware of them, the incident may be classed as misconduct rather than gross misconduct and it could mean the difference between a (final) written warning and dismissal.
It is wrong to say it was entrapment since, as far as I'm aware, the tests normally involve those who are clearly underage and the sale would have occurred regardless of Trading Standards' involvement.
Companies often use "mystery shoppers" to test customer service and that would not be entrapment, would it?
corbo - every9ne agrees the knife was sold
so discussion over entrip - entrap- entrop is by and large irrelevant to whether they are gonna get done by the police and or the employer(*)
wait and see
(*) the police for example do this to themselves, and fire the lucky transgressors. if you recollect the girl who said they were waggling guns at Winson Green at the IRA suspects (1978) was done in this very way. The police successfully pleaded in court there were no such guns in Birmingham and so she had to be lied (again)and then 20 y later admitted .....[ so that in short the liar had not been lying at all - they had]
so discussion over entrip - entrap- entrop is by and large irrelevant to whether they are gonna get done by the police and or the employer(*)
wait and see
(*) the police for example do this to themselves, and fire the lucky transgressors. if you recollect the girl who said they were waggling guns at Winson Green at the IRA suspects (1978) was done in this very way. The police successfully pleaded in court there were no such guns in Birmingham and so she had to be lied (again)and then 20 y later admitted .....[ so that in short the liar had not been lying at all - they had]
//I guess if you resign over being sacked, at least you are guaranteed a half decent reference. (douglas9401) People never fail to surprise with their unique thought processes.//
no you arent - why do you think that? you are guessing ...
as a Landlord I cannot give a troublesome tenant a good ref to get him out and onto some other lucky punter, because I become liable for the losses incurred by my words ( oo there is a surprise ! )
all settled 60 y ago - (hedley burne and heller 1964)
no you arent - why do you think that? you are guessing ...
as a Landlord I cannot give a troublesome tenant a good ref to get him out and onto some other lucky punter, because I become liable for the losses incurred by my words ( oo there is a surprise ! )
all settled 60 y ago - (hedley burne and heller 1964)
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.