What exactly is armed trespass

[andy j]

Can someone who ownes shooting rights for a given area allow others on the land covered and shoot even tho it is leased to someone else (farmer for example).

What rights does the farmer have, do they need permission from the farmer or can they barge on an time it suits.

If they aint got permission to be on the land from the farmer are they tresspasing?

 

Or from another angle if the farmer did not own the shooting rights but needed to dispatch of some vermin could he shoot it himself or would this then be armed trespass?

 

Could do with a accurate answer to this one chaps.

 

Cheers

[pegleg31]

so what you done wrong?

[TJ91]

The farmer i shoot for does not own the farm (he rents it) or shooting rights but has the right to let any person he sees fit on to shoot pests for crop protection

 

the bloke who actually owns the farm and shooting rights can also let any person onto the land even tho he rents the land out to the farmer!

 

This is what he told me...they are in contact with eachother... but it may be different in other leases etc

 

its best to get written permission from a farmer but it is a pain in the rear end asking for it and doing it so...most dont bother

 

 

 

i guess armed trespass would be going on any land you aint suppose to be on with some sort of weapon...gun

Edited October 11, 2010 by TJ91

[andy j]

I do some vermin control for a local farmer (who does not own the shooting right) with written permission, in turn i keep an eye on his land for dog men etc.

Bumped into someone in the gun shop who said he be getting on the geese from this farmers field and that he has permission from the person who owns the shooting rights, and he does not even have to let the farmer know he is coming. He will not even give a phone number or name of his aurthority.

I think he is trespassing with a fire arm.

Don't know weather to call the police.

[David BASC]

Armed trespass is most certainly going onto land with a firearm, on which you have no legal right to be.

 

Always worth checking if the person climbing to have the shooting/ sporting rights relay does!

 

A tenant farmer certainly has ground game rights – to protect his crops. But others using firearms must comply with the Ground Game Act

 

He may well have an agreement with the owner of the shooting rights regarding pest control – but check what, if any, conditions there are on this agreement – such as the maximum number of people allowed, where they are allowed to go etc.

 

The owner of the shooting rights obviously has the right to come on and permit others to come onto the land to shoot.

 

David

[libs]

On a slightly differnt topic, does it constitute armed trespass if you shoot on land that is on long term lease from the council if you have not been HSE+Civic Center+Lefty-Human-Rights checked and named as one of two licensed pest controllers using the land?

[andy j]

Armed trespass is most certainly going onto land with a firearm, on which you have no legal right to be.

 

Always worth checking if the person climbing to have the shooting/ sporting rights relay does!

 

A tenant farmer certainly has ground game rights – to protect his crops. But others using firearms must comply with the Ground Game Act

 

He may well have an agreement with the owner of the shooting rights regarding pest control – but check what, if any, conditions there are on this agreement – such as the maximum number of people allowed, where they are allowed to go etc.

 

The owner of the shooting rights obviously has the right to come on and permit others to come onto the land to shoot.

 

David

 

The farmer has leased the land for 20 years and has never had any agreements made.

Any ideas how i can check? He won't give any details

The only reason for the new interest is that geese are now landing.

[njc110381]

I do some vermin control for a local farmer (who does not own the shooting right) with written permission, in turn i keep an eye on his land for dog men etc.

Bumped into someone in the gun shop who said he be getting on the geese from this farmers field and that he has permission from the person who owns the shooting rights, and he does not even have to let the farmer know he is coming. He will not even give a phone number or name of his aurthority.

I think he is trespassing with a fire arm.

Don't know weather to call the police.

 

 

Just run it past the tennant who gives you permission. I'd have thought he would have at least a reasonable relationship with the land owner so could contact him to question it? If all is well then fine, if not boot him off!

[Pinkfooty]

It may be different in England & Wales, but in Scotland a tenant farmer who is resident on the land has a right to control agricultural pests or to authorise one other person to do so on his behalf. Normally, if the landowner wishes to prevent any such authorised person from shooting on the land, he will give the tenant farmer a written undertaking to control pests or to authorise another person to do so. The tenant farmer would retain a right to override this agreement if he could show, to the satisfaction of a Court, that the landowner or the landowner's nominee was failing to adequately control the agricultural pests.

[Piebob]

I concur with Pinkfooty. I used to belong to a syndicate on a large estate where all farms were still estate owned. Obviously, this means that all the farmers were tenant farmers. The farmers were allowed to control pests and let others do so on their behalf. The shooting syndicate could shoot at any time (deer, geese, ducks, pigeons as well as game) and there was no requirement to inform any of the farmers. In reality, we generally had a chat with the farmers if we could. That used to work both ways as they are the ones on the ground and could often say that they had seen more birds in a particular area, or wanted some help to get rid of ferals around their barns.

[The Essex Hunter]

That was Armed Trespass...!!

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc...T_69EiQyX8VVb7g

 

 

TEH

[andy j]

Just run it past the tennant who gives you permission. I'd have thought he would have at least a reasonable relationship with the land owner so could contact him to question it? If all is well then fine, if not boot him off!

 

Most of the land apart from this farm is owned by an estate, which leases the sporting rights separaly. Would it be normal for the land owners of the farm not to own the sporting rights.

Can the farmer demand to see proof of permission to shoot.

[Kes]

This is all very interesting/ worrying and I agree with 2 of the last 3 posts.

 

I agree that it seems usual when land is leased for agriculture for the landowner to retain the shooting rights. Any specific details would be in the lease.

Also, as others have said, the farmer retains rights to control pests damaging his land or crops. I do not think this 'right' can be passed to another without the owner of the shooting rights agreeing or aquiescing. I know of a situation where a tenant farmer, without shooting rights (other than controlling vermin) regularly decoys pigeon on his land. Another where a farmer allows others to shoot rabbits with rifles on land where the shooting rights are owned/leased to a syndicate.

I believe that a tenant farmer should seek agreement to anyone carrying out his pest control duties for him to protect that person, especially if that control involves section 1 firearms, simply for safety and because it would be illegal where that right and responsibility belongs to another.

 

This is therefore the test; would a shooter who a tenant invites onto his leased land be commiting armed trespass if the farmer had not at least sought the agreement to this action from the owner of the shooting rights? I believe this could be construed as armed trespass but is of a different 'level' to that commited by someone taking a gun in pursuit of game onto any land without any permission.

 

It seems to me that a test of reasonableness applies here in that, the farmer can do much as he likes HIMSELF, except when it comes to game, 'inducing' vermin on to his land, or passing a personal 'right' to another unaccompanied.

Any owner of the shooting rights should be informed of his intention to e.g. decoy pigeons causing problems and be advised that the farmer intends to control these pests by any method available. If so informed, it is for the landowner/shooting rights owner to say nothing, fine or no, "I will arrange for the intensive pest control you need".

I think this decoying issue is a fine line and would only result in bad blood not proceedings. If the farmer forewarns the owner of the shooting rights of the intent, even if he obtains no reply, he would surely be protected by the test of reasonableness?

It however seems to me that courtesy as well as reasonableness require the farmer to do this, to be in the right if challenged, especially if the pest be geese which would otherwise fall to the owner of the shooting rights as sporting game.

 

No permission is required by the owner of the shooting rights or anyone paying for those rights or properly given permission, to shoot anything, rabbits, game, geese or flocking pigeons, except courtesy, for the reason given.

I think we would do well to remember where our shooting laws derive from and that is from landowners/shooting right owners intending to protect their rights, rather than from the rights of tenant farmers.

If the land is rented by a syndicate, then all shooting rights, game rights and intensive decoying for example, would be theirs, unless specifically excluded by their lease.

The farmer would know if a syndicate had rented the shooting rights, as he would have the right to know who uses his rented land, to avoid trespass, in case damage occurs and the farmer would be required, as a condition of his lease, to cooperate reasonably with other estate tenants (e.g no locked gates).

Any syndicate gun not known to the farmer, should carry a permission slip or be able to confirm he is legitimate via a phone call. Preferably he should call on the farmer or ask the keeper / shoot manager to call first and explain to the farmer, before shooting. It does not make it illegal I suggest if the farmer does not know the gun, as the farmer has no rights over shooting permission.

Anyone who has permission but is not part of a syndicate should be known to the farmer or the farmer should seek confirmation from the landowner, simply to protect himself against loss, damage, nuisance etc.

It would also be logical for a shooting lease to say that no-one other than those authorised by the syndicate could be given shooting rights.

 

This seems to me the way it normally happens and normal lines of responsibility and rights - but any lease can change these rights to suit individual circumstances.

Also, as a syndicate member in exactly this situation, I would be very unhappy if any 'intensive' pigeon or game (geese) shooting was carried out by anyone other than a member of a syndicate who had paid for the rights unless the syndicate had agreed because it could not provide pest control to meet the farmers reasonable needs.

 

Sorry about the length but after thinking this through, I would think (I might be wrong) that the original poster is potentially open to the charge of armed trespass, by default, if his farmer has not specifically advised the owner of the shooting rights of the fact that he has given permission to another and, more importantly, given the owner of the shooting rights the opportunity to question that/refuse, by reference to the leases involved.

 

I would strongly advise you talk to your FLO/FEO, pose the question and do as he advises. Its too late to recover your guns when you find out that 'ignorance' is no defence.

 

Sorry to appear so negative but it pays to be on the 'right side', good luck and good shooting.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Kes

[andy j]

Cheers for the comprehensie reply.

You have simply highlighted that as with any other branch of law, common sense and behaviour in a reasonable manner must be applied.

 

The farmer says there is no covenant in his lease with regard to shooting rights, however i know where this guy normaly shoots so i am going to try and find out who he says owns them and ask if they can proof it is as such.

[HW682]

No permission is required by the owner of the shooting rights or anyone paying for those rights or properly given permission, to shoot anything, rabbits, game, geese or flocking pigeons, except courtesy, for the reason given.

I think we would do well to remember where our shooting laws derive from and that is from landowners/shooting right owners intending to protect their rights, rather than from the rights of tenant farmers.

If the land is rented by a syndicate, then all shooting rights, game rights and intensive decoying for example, would be theirs, unless specifically excluded by their lease.

 

Surely the laws for shooting game and pigeons derive from very different circumstances. If a syndicate turns up to shoot pigeons (because they have paid for the "right" to do so) without even consulting the farmer then it might be difficult to show that they are complying with the terms of the OGL?

[CharlieT]

Sporting and shooting rights are a tradable commodity in their own right. Their ownership frequently changes hands and the owner may use them for his own benefit or may lease them out to a third party for a period of time and therefore be in receipt of an income. The owner or the lease holder of the shooting rights may authorise whoever he wishes to shoot over the land.

 

Remember also that the owner of the shooting rights when assigning those rights to another via a lease can write any restrictions he so wishes into the lease. He may for instance lease out the game shooting rights but retain the rights to take deer and wildfowl.

 

Shooting rights give the owner the right of access to the land to take game, deer (usually), wildfowl and vermin.

 

The farmer be he landowner or tenant (where he does not own the shooting rights) is only permitted to control vermin and ground game. This must be done by himself or a family member and one other nominated person. Vermin control would include pigeon decoying.

 

Both farm owners and tenant farmers would be aware of the details as they would be in their deeds or tenancy agreement.

 

Of course one has to ask the question "are shooting rights worth the paper they are written on". In a modern society free from fundal dominance is it right and proper that the nice little country estate you bought with your Euro Lottery winnings does not include the shooting rights and that every Saturday a team of 8 guns line up on your front lawn to bang away at the pheasants your wife has been feeding on the patio all week.

 

I predict that one day someone (with the bank ballance of a footballer or lottery winner) will challange their validity in law and I have a feeling they will win.

 

However, with my shooting rights owners hat on I can assure you that it's all pretty straight forward and no one is going to get nicked for armed trespass provided you have written permission from the farmer. Any error will be his responsibility.