🔴 SHOCK LOOPHOLE: New Labour Law Gives Knife Thugs '4 Strikes FREE'
The crisis of knife crime on our streets is not a matter of societal failure alone; it is a demonstrable failure of deterrence, one that has been inadvertently—and perhaps shamefully—legislated into existence. The proof of this legislative collapse lies not in police statistics, but in the lethal elegance of the small sword, the most socially discriminating weapon in Western history.
The technical analysis of this aristocratic instrument—designed solely for the deadly precision of the thrust—versus the primitive, heavy hacking of a machete or a street-purchased 'ninja sword', reveals a critical, immutable truth.
A master swordsman, trained in the geometry and discipline of the point, would defeat the unskilled thug in a single, fluid one-second of engagement. This historical, almost clinical, superiority created an unassailable means of self-preservation for the educated elite against the common street threat.
And here lies the crux of the modern dilemma.
As a court correspondent, legal commentator and competitive fencer, my position is unequivocal: the carriage of any weapon in a public place, including the technically superior but still highly illegal sword cane, must be and remains a serious criminal offence.
So, instead we rely, entirely, on the law enforcement agencies and the Judiciary to protect the public. However, by legally prohibiting the law-abiding citizen from possessing this proven, superior means of self-defence, the State assumes a commensurate, non-negotiable obligation to deter the criminal element from also carrying weapons. It is in fulfilling this obligation that the current legislative agenda suffers a spectacular, potentially fatal, operational failure.
The conflict centres on the anticipated implementation of the Presumption to Suspend Short Custodial Sentences, a central plank of the current Labour Government’s Sentencing Bill (2025), currently passing through Parliament and expected to become active in early 2026.
What the Sentencing Bill means: This law mandates that sentences of 12 months or less must be suspended, unless the court finds that specific, narrow exceptions apply (such as the offender having breached a prior court order or posing a significant risk of harm to a particular individual).
Its primary legal and political purpose is to reduce the demand on critically overcrowded prisons by diverting approximately two-thirds of the current short-sentence caseload into intensive community supervision. This policy, created to alleviate the crisis in prison capacity, collides head-on with the existing statutory deterrent against repeat knife crime: the 'Two Strikes' policy under Section 315 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
The 'Two Strikes' law was designed to be uncompromising, mandating a minimum immediate custodial sentence of six months for a second conviction for Possession of an article with a blade or point in a public place, contrary to Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act quu in 1988.
Subsequent third and fourth offences attract minimums of nine months and possibility twelve months, respectively. The intention of Parliament was clear: repeat knife offenders must go to prison.
Yet, the new Bill functionally disarms this very mandate. Since the statutory minimums of six months (second strike) and nine months (third strike) both fall squarely within the new 12-month limit, the court is now presented with two competing duties: the duty to impose an immediate minimum under the old law, and the presumptive duty to suspend under the new Bill.
The court's new duty is to suspend. To avoid suspending the sentence, the prosecution would now be forced to prove one of the Bill’s narrow exemptions, such as a breach of a prior order or a "significant risk of harm" to a particular individual.
For a simple possession charge—where the knife was found but not used to threaten a specific person—this is a very high judicial bar to clear. Without this proof, the Magistrate’s hands will be tied.
The result is the emergence of a 'smoking machete': a highly dangerous, as yet unacknowledged, legal loophole.
The repeat offender, facing a statutory six-month minimum for their second strike, can now reasonably expect the Magistrate to suspend that sentence, especially if offered by the defence counsel in a strong pre-sentence report. This means, in practice, that an individual can be convicted of carrying an illegal bladed article four or even five times before they lose their liberty.
This is not complex legal geekery; it is the fundamental collapse of deterrence.
The current Labour Government, by prioritizing prison capacity above the demonstrable certainty of punishment for repeat knife offenders, has effectively disarmed the State's own deterrent policy. They are asking law-abiding citizens to rely on a punitive system that, at its most critical junction, is designed to avoid punishment.
The small sword, in its lethal elegance, proves that when personal, superior self-defence is removed, only the certainty of severe State retribution can restore the balance. The only way to truly disarm the street thug—and restore faith in the law—is to ensure that the privilege of carrying a weapon is instantly and irrevocably terminated by the closure of a prison door.
The legislature must, at the very least, create an explicit, statutory exemption within the new Sentencing Bill to ensure the 'Two Strikes' policy remains one of immediate imprisonment, or admit that they are conceding the battle against repeat knife crime to the pressures of an overcrowded prison estate.
