Children and Knives

2011

Suppose an 11 year old wants to carry a fixed blade "survival" type knife on his belt while camping and tracking with the Scouts / Cubs. He lives in the countryside and also wants it for "playing in the woods and fields" with his friends. He wants it for "whittling wood" and preparing tinder to light camp fires. He already has a rather expensive "Leatherman" folding knife that is recommended on the scouts website, however he feels that this knife does not meet his needs.

Can anyone tell me what the legal position on this is (assuming that the clid does nothing "stupid" with the knife)?
Am I correct in assuming that there could there be legal consequences for the parents or guardians of a child found in possession of a fixed blade sheathed knife?

Many thanks.

BattleCorp

I can't see a problem if the kid has a legitimate use for the knife. Carrying the knife while camping, fishing etc. seems like a legitimate use for it and would probably be ok.

What wouldn't be acceptable is carrying the knife while hanging around town, playing football, in school etc.

I don't see why it is different with kids and adults.

By the way, I know as much about the law as a pig knows about a suit.

brian_t

I would imagine that the Scouts / Cubs would already have a policy on cubs carrying knives.

lifeandtimes

Shouldn't be a problem provided there is supervision by an adult as there would be with the scouts

But I personally wouldn't let an 11 year old out and about in woods with a knife with just his friends,no matter how experienced they are with the scouts,they could run into a group of other kids and bad things could happen if a scuffle breaks out

GM228

2011 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the legal position on this is (assuming that the clid does nothing "stupid" with the knife)?

It is an offence for anyone to simply carry anything with a blade or which is "sharply pointed" (irrespective of actually doing anything "stupid") in a public place without good reason, lawful authority or for work or recreational purposes. The last part would cover the child camping/cubs/scouts etc.

Lets then consider a child carrying a knife in general for a purpose not mentioned above, whilst it is an offence to carry a knife other than the above it should be noted that a child under the age of 12 can not be held criminally responsible anyway, however a child 12 and over could be.

2011 wrote: »

Am I correct in assuming that there could there be legal consequences for the parents or guardians of a child found in possession of a fixed blade sheathed knife?

A parent could be held responsible for the criminal actions of a 12 year old or over in certain circumstances when the court believes that a wilful failure of a parent to take care of or to control the child contributed to the child’s criminal behaviour, a court can then impose a compensation order on the parent which may be recovered in like manner as if the order had been made on the conviction of the parent of the offence of which the child was found guilty. This would not apply to an under 12 year old.

If there was a wrongful act performed by the child using the knife then the parent could be liable for a civil wrong in an action of tort for the wrongful acts of their child (of any age), but this would very much depend on the actions/knowledge of the parent before the act such as failing to protect someone/something from their childs dangerous/violent propensity which they should reasonably be aware of or failing to have proper control over a child to stop any unreasonable danger etc.

Hope that answers your query.

evolving_doors

2011 wrote: »

Suppose an 11 year old wants to carry a fixed blade "survival" type knife on his belt while camping and tracking with the Scouts / Cubs. He lives in the countryside and also wants it for "playing in the woods and fields" with his friends. He wants it for "whittling wood" and preparing tinder to light camp fires. He already has a rather expensive "Leatherman" folding knife that is recommended on the scouts website, however he feels that this knife does not meet his needs.

Can anyone tell me what the legal position on this is (assuming that the clid does nothing "stupid" with the knife)?
Am I correct in assuming that there could there be legal consequences for the parents or guardians of a child found in possession of a fixed blade sheathed knife?

Many thanks.

His cub scout leader should be the one to assess what he 'needs'.
I don't see any reason why he 'needs' to carry a sheathed knife other than to look cool.
And they do look cool. . A friend of mine had the same one as Rambo, and brought it camping with the scouts, and it promptly got confiscated. We survived fine without it.

2011

For the record: I do not think that a child possessing a knife such as this is appropriate, necessary or particularly safe, I just want to know if it is legal.

John_Rambo

He's eleven, has he had his investiture from Cubs to Scouts? Fixed knives might be relevant for serious backwoods/bivouac badges, but not everyday scouting, sea or land and certainly not for Cub Scouts.

Talk to his Scout leader or Skipper. Scouts use much more advanced kit than normal youths and carry out tasks that non Scouting kids wouldn't dream of.

However, it's not unheard of for an opportunistic Scout to convince parents he/she needs stuff that she/he doesn't really need for Scouting.

NUTLEY BOY

If a problem arose with an 11 yo's possession of such a knife context would be everything.

Generally, in relation to weapons, what might be completely innocent and appropriate in one situation might be diametrically different in another - context again. AFAIK the age of criminal responsibility in Ireland is still 12 so he should be safe enough....for now............

OP asks if there are legal consequences for parents or guardians of an 11 yo in possession of a knife if something "stupid" happened. IMHO there could be both civil and criminal implications of an adverse nature.

Suppose the imaginary 11 yo had a known propensity to mischief, aggression and or other potentially dangerous tendencies and he then decides to eviscerate a fellow scout because he takes the notion to do so. If the parents and or guardians had knowledge of such propensities they could well be accused of something akin to reckless endangerment (criminal aspect) and or negligence (civil aspect). If such propensities existed, and were known, there would be a fair and square onus on the parents or guardians to see that the 11 yo is not "armed".

Generally, I prefer 11 yos to be in possession of a knife at meal times only...........

GM228

I don't believe the parent can be held criminally liable for the actions of their child - to apply reckless endangerment the person charged would have to have actually engaged in the conduct which created any substantial risk of death or serious harm to another.

Knowing of a childs propensity is not engaging in any conduct which caused any endangerment, in other words they would have to actually take part in whatever caused the endangerment.

Bar a compensation order which I previously mentioned I don't believe there can be any other forms of parental criminal responsibility for their childrens actions.

Unless you tried the abuse/neglect route somehow - but that would be criminal responsibility for the parents own actions or lack of action , not criminal responsibiliry for their childs actions.

NUTLEY BOY

GM228 wrote: »

I don't believe the parent can be held criminally liable for the actions of their child - to apply reckless endangerment the person charged would have to have actually engaged in the conduct which created any substantial risk of death or serious harm to another.

Knowing of a childs propensity is not engaging in any conduct which caused any endangerment.

I agree with the first premise.

The distinction I argue is that if possession of knowledge by the parent / guardian of the likely danger causes a victim to have been exposed is that not the separate and independent recklessness of the parent / guardian ?

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I agree with the first premise.

The distinction I argue is that if possession of knowledge by the parent / guardian of the likely danger causes a victim to have been exposed is that not the separate and independent recklessness of the parent / guardian ?

Interesting but how would it be tested? Objectively or subjectively? Reckless Endangerment is subjective but wouldn't recklessness of parents be objective?

It still isn't taking part though in the actual act that creates the endangerment.

But if we are then applying recklessness of the parents civil rather than criminal responsibilty comes into play.

Big Bag of Chips

At 11 he'd only be in cubs. Regardless of the whether or not it is technically legal the cubs leaders might not be happy for him to be in possession of it. They have age appropriate activities and equipment, and it us why there are different grouping ages. Beavers would not be expected to do the same tasks as Scouts.

So even if its not illegal for him to carry it, only while scouting for specifically scouting needs, (it would be illegal from him to bring it in to Spar if they stopped at a shop!) his leaders might be uncomfortable with it, and their insurance may not cover him using such equipment.

NUTLEY BOY

GM228 wrote: »

Interesting but how would it be tested? Objectively or subjectively?

It still isn't taking part though in the actual act that creates the endangerment.

But if we are then applying recklessness of the parents civil rather than criminal responsibilty comes into play.

I suspect objectively. Otherwise, the accused would always argue that they had no idea that there was such a danger as far as they were concerned . That said, I accept that there are instances where a subjective judgment is a correct test as where you formed an honest belief that a man with a tipped hypodermic was actually going to stab you and that is why you shot him but that is a different issue.

You can split the criminal and civil issues distinctly. You can have criminal culpability coincident with civil liability.

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I suspect objectively. Otherwise, the accused would always argue that they had no idea that there was such a danger as far as they were concerned . That said, I accept that there are instances where a subjective judgment is a correct test as where you formed an honest belief that a man with a tipped hypodermic was actually going to stab you and that is why you shot him but that is a different issue.

The test for recklessness where an offence is concerned is an objective test, but I believe any test on a parents actions and liability (certainly at least in civil matters) with regards their children is based on negligence as opposed to recklessness, negligence is an objective test. They arn't compatible.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

You can split the criminal and civil issues distinctly. You can have criminal culpability coincident with civil liability.

Indeed their can be both civil and criminal responsibility, but where a parent is concerned criminal culpability can't apply irrespective of weather or not the child has commited an offence bar the what I previously mentioned regarding a compensation order.

Peregrinus

2011 wrote: »

For the record: I do not think that a child possessing a knife such as this is appropriate, necessary or particularly safe, I just want to know if it is legal.

Leaving aside the issue of criminal liablity, which GM228 has already addressed, there's also an issue of civil liability. If an injury results - to the child himself, or to another member of the pack - I think the cub scout leaders are very much in the frame, since they have a duty of care towards the children, and (as you point out) letting the boy have such a knife is unsafe. For that reason I confidently predict that if the boy is allowed by his parents to bring such a knife the leaders will confiscate it as soon as they see it.