Fisher v Bell

INTRODUCTION
• The respondent was a shopkeeper of a retail shop in Bristol whereas
the appellant was a chief inspector of police.In October 1959, a police
constable walked past the shop and saw the display of flick knife with
price attached to it.The police constable examined the knife and took
it away for examination by superintendent of police.The police
constable later returned to inform the respondent that the knife was
a “flick knife” and that the respondent would be reported for offering
for sale a flick knife.The applellant contended that the display of flick
knife was in violation of Section 1(1) of the restriction of Offensive
Weapons Aact 1959(the act) because by displaying the flick knife in
the shop window,the respondent was offering the flick knife for
sale,which was prohibited under the Act,Howewver,the respondent
claimed that he did not offer the knife for sale within the meaning of
the Act of 1959.
 LAW
• This case will be under Restriction of offensive weapons Act 1959.An
Act to amend the law in relation to the making and disposing and
importation of flick knives and other dangerous weapons.
• Penalties for offences in connection with dangerous weapons.
• In the case of a first offence to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to
both such imprisonment and fine, and in the case of a second or
subsequent offence to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to both
such imprisonment and fine.
 ISSUES
• A shopkeeper display flick knife in the window with a price attached
to it constituted an offer for sale within the meaning of section 1(1) of
the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
 SOlution
• A shopkeeper are not guilty.It is because the shopkeeper was just
displaying the knife.This is was merely an invitation to treat.Although
the display of a knief might at first appear as an offer inviting people
to buy it, and that it would be nonsence to say that it was not offering
it for sale.The general law of the country merely displaying an item
constituted an invitation to treat.
• Nevertheless,this loophole in the Act has been closed in the
Restriction of Offensive Weapons ACT 1961 which inserts the Words
“exposes or has in possession for the purpose of sale or hire.The
additional of the word”exposes (For Sale) would include the Display of
flick-knife in a shop window and make it an offence under this Act.
 Conclusion
• The Shopkeeper not guilty because the old law of the Restriction of
Offensive Weapons Act, 1959 did not comply with the requirement to
punish him but after that incident the weakness of the act was closed
with the new Act of Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1961.
Thank You