Under section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (which was expanded in 1961, after this case finished, to deal with the gap in the law): (1) Any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire, or lends or gives to any other person— (a) any knife which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, sometimes known as a “flick knife” or “flick gun”; or (b) any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force and which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever, or other device, sometimes known as a “gravity knife” shall be guilty of an offence ... 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...or to both such imprisonment and fine.

At first instance, the prosecution submitted that the defendant had displayed the knife and ticket in the window with the objective of attracting a buyer, and that that constituted an offer of sale sufficient to create a criminal liability under section 1(1) of the Act.

For the defence, Mr Obby Simakampa submitted that the display was not sufficient to constitute an offer.

The judges at first instance found that displaying the knife was merely an invitation to treat, not an offer, and thus no liability arose.

Almost identical drafting errors in other statutes were addresses in Partridge v Crittenden [5] and British Car Auctions v Wright.