​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1983) (1984) CA
​Key Principle: This case clarifies the legal considerations surrounding the possession of offensive weapons for self-defense.
Facts of the Case:

• During a riot, the defendant's (D's) shop was looted.
• In response, D manufactured 10 petrol bombs.
• D's stated intention for possessing these petrol bombs was to use them as a defense against future rioters.

Court's Ruling (Held):
The Court of Appeal ruled that D's possession of the petrol bombs could be for a lawful object under specific circumstances.
Crucial Conditions for Lawful Possession (per Lord Lane CJ):
Possession of an item that could be considered an offensive weapon is lawful if the defendant's object (purpose) meets the following criteria:

1. Imminent Apprehended Attack: The purpose must be to protect oneself, one's family, or one's property against an imminent apprehended attack. This means the threat must be perceived as immediate and likely to occur.
2. Reasonable Means: The means used (the item possessed) must be believed by the defendant to be no more than reasonably necessary to counter the force used by the attackers. This implies a proportionality requirement – the defensive measure must not be excessive in relation to the threat.

In essence, this case establishes a defense for possessing potentially offensive items when:

• There's an immediate and credible threat to personal safety or property.
• The item is intended for use in self-defense, and not for initiating an attack.
• The level of force intended is proportionate to the anticipated threat.

Note for Study: This case highlights the nuanced interpretation of "lawful object" in the context of possessing items that could be categorized as offensive weapons. The subjective belief of the defendant regarding the immediacy of the threat and the proportionality of their response are critical factors.