Rogerborg
Supporters
- Aug 22, 2017
- 9,190
- 6,048
Nothing illegal wearing police kit on private land. Impersonation is all about intent, bit like stolen valour.
Whether it's private land or not has no relevance to the offence. It's all about intent. Consider that you could be impersonating with intent on someone else's land. In fact, someone who turns up at an airsoft site dressed up as a copper might be committing an offence depending on whether they're just there to play the game, or whether they shout "Armed rozzers, down on the ground, you slaaags."
The offence of mere possession also does not require you to be in public and does not require intent. It's a guilty until proven innocent by providing a "lawful purpose" offence. However, it turns out that the scope of what constitutes a lawful purpose is much wider than you might imagine.
Case law can be found at https://www.bailii.org and I'd suggest an advanced search along the lines of "Police Act 1996" AND "section 90", narrowed to case law.
Here's the most recent and relevant case, from the Court of Appeals in 2015:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/3312.html&query="police+act+1996"+AND+"section+90"
A trader (http://www.britishbobby.co.uk/) was convicted of possession at Crown, but cleared at Appeals. Possession for selling to the public without performing any checks on the identity or the intent of the buyer was held to be a lawful purpose. Parliament should clarify the scope of S90 if they disagree.
The significant part for potential purchasers / owners:
"Articles of police uniform can lawfully be possessed for a wide variety of purposes, other than the performance of police duty. The following is a non-exhaustive list: theatrical, film or TV performance by actors (amateur and professional) in the role of a police officer; wearing at fancy dress parties and similar events; collection and display in a museum; private collection for personal enjoyment;"
Now, I'd consider that last one to be far too broad, as it essentially says that wanting to possess them constitutes a lawful purpose for possessing them. But who am I to argue with Mr Justice Mitting?
The tl;dr version is that in England and Wales, you now have a strong defence for possession if you can show any sort of reason for wanting it. I wouldn't fret about it, just don't flaunt it in public, and don't ever pretend to actually be a copper, even briefly as a prank.
Last edited by a moderator: