Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the order has been brought before Parliament to correct an error in a previous piece of secondary legislation—the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025—which we debated on 5 June 2025. As the Minister said, the previous order banned so-called ninja swords under the powers in Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I supported that measure at the time, and I still do.

Knife crime remains one of the toughest and most serious challenges in policing, and its effects weigh heavily on communities up and down the country. However, since passing the order, the police have raised issues with the definition of the characteristics of the weapon in question. The order stated that, for an article to be considered a ninja sword, it had to have a primary cutting edge, a secondary cutting edge, a blunt spine and a tanto-style point or a reverse tanto-style point. The original order defined the secondary cutting edge as being a cutting edge which

“is no more than 5% longer or shorter than the width of the blade immediately after the handle”.

As the Minister said, the police have raised an issue with that definition, and it appears that the Home Office was mistaken to use the 5% threshold in the original order. The order before us today amends that definition to 105%.

As I supported the ban on ninja swords and this piece of legislation corrects the error in the definition, I therefore support this order today. It is a welcome move, as the Government have listened to concerns from the police and acted swiftly to rectify the mistake.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I cannot let the moment pass without asking: how did this happen? How did the Home Office not realise when it was drafting the order last year that the definition it had used for the secondary cutting edge was incorrect? Did officials consult the police or did the Home Office engage weapons specialists? If so, how did no one realise the error in the definition? I look forward to the answers from the Minister.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for his broad support for the original and existing orders. I am indebted to him for his contribution to this debate.

In 2024, the Government consulted on new legislative proposals on ninja swords, which were agreed last year, as the noble Lord said. We included the proposed definition that was in the order last year and liaised directly with all stakeholders. At the time, there was no indication from any of them, including the police, that we needed to revisit the definition. They all supported it. The consultation included wide-ranging discussions, and there was no indication that the legal definition would not function as intended.

This happened only after the police began to collect the knives that had been surrendered. There were 3,942 knives surrendered, including 142 weapons where compensation was not claimed. A total of 3,570 knives and weapons were surrendered through an extended surrender scheme. The police became aware of the issues at that time and raised them with the Government. Once the police identified the error, we acted immediately to correct the wording and ensure that the definition functions correctly to outlaw these weapons.

We have passed legislation on ninja swords—a type of sword that we are aware has been used for crimes. We will keep the legislation under review, but if it was an error then it was one made by everyone involved in the consultation. My job is to make sure that we rectify that, which we have done today, by bringing this order before the Committee.