highseas Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 dofo,, but this sounds like they where trying to scare hima bit he went to them on his own and owned up they never charged him or any thing i would but it down to a "life exsperince" he wont do it again lol we have all been some where were not ment to be at some stage, just never been caught Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Burpster Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Whilst there is some solid and good advice being quoted on here. I'm afraid there is a great deal of speculation and miss information being spouted by those with little knowledge about Police procedures. Firstly none of us were present with the young shooter when he was at the station, and therefore some of you are speculating. His story has clearly been embellished or just badly relayed (probably due do his shock of what happened) for our consumption. He was clearly NOT arrested, as he would have been presented to a Custody Officer in a custody suite and given his rights - (this would have included the right to free independent legal advice). It may have been explained to him that he COULD have been arrested but wasn't. He would have undoubtedly been interviewed under caution voluntarily at a station. As the landowner had not made a complaint of his trespassing on his land then no offences were committed and hence he was allowed his rifle back. He has not committed the offence of armed trespass as that offence is often miss-quoted and it is quite specific in its points to prove - one of which is the intent to trespass to take game. (not plink at targets). It would be good if folks stopped quoting this without knowledge of the proper offence. I'm sure the 2 officers in question interviewed the young man to check his intentions and make sure he had lawful access to the air rifle. Once they were satisfied that no offences were committed he was probably given stern words of advice. I believe he's very lucky and I feel it would go a long way if he made efforts to ask the 2 officers who it was that handed in his air rifle ( they will have had to record those details) so that he can go and apologise to the landowner in person. He may find that, that simple act of humility could result in his first permission. He was very unwise to act as he did but lets hope he has learned a very valuable lesson and one that will stand him in good stead in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSPUK Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 What most people probably don't know and I didn't either till today is - This young lads parents will now have to tell their home insurance company he has had a caution - In terms and conditions it says they must be told of any caution or conviction of any occupant of house - some companies will cancel their insurance there and then -if you do not tell them and make a claim your insurance could be null and void. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1366644/Caught-far-dodging-How-minor-conviction-huge-impact-insurance.html Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) What most people probably don't know and I didn't either till today is - This young lads parents will now have to tell their home insurance company he has had a caution - In terms and conditions it says they must be told of any caution or conviction of any occupant of house - some companies will cancel their insurance there and then -if you do not tell them and make a claim your insurance could be null and void. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1366644/Caught-far-dodging-How-minor-conviction-huge-impact-insurance.html Dave I never knew that! I wonder does it effect landlords insurances as i don't remember ever being asked about it when renting? (buildings insurance wise) could be a lot off issues for people if they cant rent a property as their unspent conviction means they are refused rentals! I've never had a "caution" what is one exactly? Did this lad get one? Edited March 16, 2011 by HDAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 What most people probably don't know and I didn't either till today is - This young lads parents will now have to tell their home insurance company he has had a caution - In terms and conditions it says they must be told of any caution or conviction of any occupant of house - some companies will cancel their insurance there and then -if you do not tell them and make a claim your insurance could be null and void. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1366644/Caught-far-dodging-How-minor-conviction-huge-impact-insurance.html Dave No his parents won't because as you will have read in post #1 the chap was not given a caution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 What most people probably don't know and I didn't either till today is - This young lads parents will now have to tell their home insurance company he has had a caution - In terms and conditions it says they must be told of any caution or conviction of any occupant of house - some companies will cancel their insurance there and then -if you do not tell them and make a claim your insurance could be null and void. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1366644/Caught-far-dodging-How-minor-conviction-huge-impact-insurance.html Dave Well that speaks volumes about the Daily Rant, Far Dodging They even have spell checker now dummies ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super sharp shooter Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 I have never herd of telling the insurance company about police cautions if i had one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom&Dexter Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 I would take him around to the farmer with a written apology and grovel. Without a complaint from the farmer/landowner it is unlikely that charges will follow,however the landowner can make the complaint at a later date etc.I would suspect it is still recorded as an incident. If I was the landowner this is what I woud want and I would also be impressed as a proper apology is manning up to his daft act.Don't dwell on it go and sort. If it had been on my land I would have done exactly the same as th landowner did here,especially if I had no idea who the lad was. If I then saw the lad coming to apologise accompanied by an experienced shooting relative I would make him sweat but accept the apology..if I thought the lad was actually a decent sort who was contrite I would probably end up giving him permission!! Until however you prove he is a decent lad/comes to see the landowner I would suspect the landowner still has a pretty poor opinion of him..and who can blame him at this point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 Ok my bit. Yes the kid knows he's done wrong now but if I was sed kid I would demand a copy of the interview or transcript whatever it is the names of the police who interviewed him and would make an official complaint about them spouting bull **** I would also tell basc so they could educate these police. If this boy lives anywhere near me he's more then welcome to come plink away on my land (E.Yorkshire) Another barrack room lawyer with no idea what he's on about It is an offence to take an air weapon out in public without reasonable excuse. Resonable excuse would be on your way (or back from) to a club to shoot or on your way to (or back from) land where you have premission to shoot. Since 2007 it is an arrestable offence, i.e. you can be arrested simply for keeping the air rifle in the boot of your car or wandering down the road to showit to your mate even if it is in a cover. The fact that they've made a mistake about the silencer does not preclude their right to arrest him. That said, like Burpster I think that he would have been dealt with as a voluntary attender under Section 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act rather than have been formally arrested. I also think the reason he kept his gun is because the person who took it from him has no legal right to do so, and probably would not make a statement in any case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross-obrien Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) As the landowner had not made a complaint of his trespassing on his land then no offences were committed and hence he was allowed his rifle back. He has not committed the offence of armed trespass as that offence is often miss-quoted and it is quite specific in its points to prove - one of which is the intent to trespass to take game. (not plink at targets). It would be good if folks stopped quoting this without knowledge of the proper offence. Just because the land owner did not make a complaint does not mean there was no offence. By the landowner attending a police station and handing over the rifle, he has potentially notifed the police of a criminal offence, which the police are then required to investigate and potentially record a crime as per the National Crime Recording Standards. From how the incident has been described the young man in question was on land which he did not have permission to be with a "firearm". S.20(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 states "a person commits an offence if, while he has a firearm or imitation firearm with him, he enters or is on any land as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him)." The wording of the offence does not require and intent to trespass for the purpose of taking game. Therefore the young man in question has potentially committed this offence. The maximum penalty for this offence is 3 months imprisonment and/or a fine. For information, a complaint is not required for a conviction to be brought if there is sufficient evidence to prove the offence took place for example a person can still be convicted of assault even if the victim does not "wish to press charges" if there is other evidence to show the offence took place. If the lad in question in this matter fully admitted the offence on interview then he may have provided sufficent evidence to be prosecuted. He may not have been given a caution on the day but has he been reported for the offence and notifed that a summons may be issued in due course? I doubt is as he would not have been given the gun back. As has been said above, none of us were there so we will never know. Edited March 16, 2011 by ross-obrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 An airgun is classed as a firearm at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooky Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 1 he done wrong 2 the farmer was good for not reporting him 3 the police didnt have a clue as the could have pushed things further with the framer if they wanted (armed tresspass) 4 he got away lightly 5 grovel on hands and knees to the farmer to say sorry 6 at his age and knowing people who shoot = you surely he knew he was in the wrong and needs a slap 7 if he doesnt know he was in the wrong shooting on somewhere that wasnt his he should be kept away from guns and sharp items as he isn't trust worthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 ....................... .........I would be interested what other people think off this story and will show the lad the comments, thanks for reading Second hand, from a guy who didn't get permission and passed to you... very difficult to confirm/accept anything much here really, ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badger.22cal Posted March 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 Second hand, from a guy who didn't get permission and passed to you... very difficult to confirm/accept anything much here really, ! Yes indeed you may see it from that point of view but i can assure you that is not the case. I know the lad through his father and have given him some pointers and advice from time to time including NOT to shoot on land without permission. He might be 18 but he is a harmless young lad, although that is no excuse for such an error of judgement. I do not know all the ins and outs but i did mention the possible armed trespass, knowing that people on here may be more educated than me on the subject and the lad to embarrassed to speak out himself i thought it would be good for him to read. Since the inccident the lad in question has approached the farm but has not spoken to the landowner and has written a letter of apology. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Burpster Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 S.20(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 states "a person commits an offence if, while he has a firearm or imitation firearm with him, he enters or is on any land as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him)." The wording of the offence does not require and intent to trespass for the purpose of taking game. Therefore the young man in question has potentially committed this offence. The maximum penalty for this offence is 3 months imprisonment and/or a fine. I'm quite happy that I was aware of that section of the Firearms act, however on the PNLD and pretty much every other officer I know, knows 'Armed tresspass' to be another offence. (the one actually referred to as "armed tresspass" in the act). I'm pretty confident (without taking CPS advice) that for the offence you mention, air guns under the FAC power level are not included. However are we not getting a off topic....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross-obrien Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 However are we not getting a off topic....? Probably. so i have sent you a pm so we can debate this without hijacking the thread. Ross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 The police did exactly what they should have done, laid it on a bit thick, exaggerated somewhat and scared the pants of the chap then sent him home with a flea in his ear. Good old fashioned policing of which we need to see more. Damn right, pity there isn't more of this common sense policing about. He's learned his lesson without getting a record which could blight his life. A also completely agree that the lad should go around and apologise to the farmer, I'd go further and suggest he volunteer a couple of hours mucking out or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning GTS Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Whilst there is some solid and good advice being quoted on here. I'm afraid there is a great deal of speculation and miss information being spouted by those with little knowledge about Police procedures. Firstly none of us were present with the young shooter when he was at the station, and therefore some of you are speculating. His story has clearly been embellished or just badly relayed (probably due do his shock of what happened) for our consumption. He was clearly NOT arrested, as he would have been presented to a Custody Officer in a custody suite and given his rights - (this would have included the right to free independent legal advice). It may have been explained to him that he COULD have been arrested but wasn't. He would have undoubtedly been interviewed under caution voluntarily at a station. As the landowner had not made a complaint of his trespassing on his land then no offences were committed and hence he was allowed his rifle back. He has not committed the offence of armed trespass as that offence is often miss-quoted and it is quite specific in its points to prove - one of which is the intent to trespass to take game. (not plink at targets). It would be good if folks stopped quoting this without knowledge of the proper offence. I'm sure the 2 officers in question interviewed the young man to check his intentions and make sure he had lawful access to the air rifle. Once they were satisfied that no offences were committed he was probably given stern words of advice. I believe he's very lucky and I feel it would go a long way if he made efforts to ask the 2 officers who it was that handed in his air rifle ( they will have had to record those details) so that he can go and apologise to the landowner in person. He may find that, that simple act of humility could result in his first permission. He was very unwise to act as he did but lets hope he has learned a very valuable lesson and one that will stand him in good stead in the future. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Burpster Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Probably. so i have sent you a pm so we can debate this without hijacking the thread. Ross Yippeee. replied... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.