#
My Lords, this order seeks to amend the definition of “ninja sword” in the list of prohibited offensive weapons contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988.
I will briefly set out the context. Noble Lords will recognise the campaigning by the family of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was fatally stabbed in 2022, following which there was a Labour government manifesto commitment to ban ninja swords. In 2024, we held a public consultation to seek views from the public and a range of interested stakeholders on the draft definition of a ninja sword. Ninja swords are defined as a bladed article with a blade between 14 inches and 24 inches in length, with one straight cutting edge and a tanto-style point. This length was chosen in order to exclude knives and tools designed for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen knives and other types of knives.
In order to be within scope of the ban, the article should also have the features specified in paragraph 1(u) of the Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, namely: a primary cutting edge, a secondary cutting edge and a blunt spine, with either a tanto-style point or a reverse-tanto style point. These terms are further defined in the detail of the legislation.
We analysed the consultation responses and introduced legislation as per the manifesto on ninja swords, which were prohibited from 1 August 2025. The Government recently became aware that the wording of the legislation does not correctly describe the length of the secondary straight cutting edge of a ninja sword as intended. The order before the Committee today seeks to rectify that and align the legislation with the original intention.
To be clear to noble Lords, this amendment is a technical clarification to existing secondary legislation banning ninja swords, and although the amendment to the definition widens the scope of the current wording, it does not introduce new offences, bring any ninja swords out of scope or impose any additional requirements on the public. The detail is as follows: under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose or possess for the purposes of sale or hire a weapon specified in an order made under that section.
The current legislation contains a detailed description of the tanto-style or reverse tanto-style point of the sword. It may be helpful if I just remind noble Lords of that legislation, which states that
“a secondary straight cutting edge is a cutting edge … which forms an angle with the primary straight cutting edge and the spine, and … is no more than 5% longer or shorter than the width of the blade immediately after the handle”.
The reference to “5%” is incorrect and limits the scope of what size of tip falls under the legislation. We are therefore proposing to use this order-making power in Section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to amend the definition of a secondary straight cutting edge to
“a cutting edge … which forms an angle with the primary straight cutting edge and the spine, and … is no more than 105% longer than the width of the blade immediately after the handle”.
That correction will allow the legislation to function as intended and remove any ambiguity about the swords which fall within the scope of the definition. We have also included an additional diagram in the explanatory notes to make the definition easier to understand.
To conclude, we have a mission to halve knife crime in a decade, and it is essential that we stop potentially dangerous weapons such as ninja swords getting into the wrong hands. This is a necessary clarification, and the order will aid both the Government and the police in that vital effort. I commend it to the Committee.
#
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.
#
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.