Is this true

[JonathanL]

As as has already been said you could perhaps, just perhaps, argue that the definition of 'occupier' is open to debate. I just don't happen to think so.

 

We've heard what two landowners think about it and I'm absolutely amazed that no one has actually considered the wider picture. Let's say the permission =occupiers crowd win the day and that becomes the definitive in law. Now, the vast majority of us rely on the farmers' permission to shoot over their land and for obvious reasons they are happy to grant that permission. It's even got to the stage where some call the land they shoot over a 'permission'.

 

However, now that permission, previously willingly granted, has been granted occupier status. Consequently, are the landowners now going to grant that permission at all, never mind willingly. I'm pretty sure of the answer but would welcome comments from our two landowners. I would guess that existing permission holders who do the job that they were given permission to do would slowly but surely find themselves with more and more acreage based on the recommendation of their existing farmer and the supply of land available to other shooters would similarly dry up.

 

As is sometimes said here, " be careful what you wish for".

 

You're on the wrong track there. It isn't the case that just because you are on 'occupier' you have some sort of hold over the owner. It all depends upon the specific nature of the agreement. For instance, if you hand over the keys to your house for your builder to let him self inj while you're away it would probably make him an occupier. However, he's only an occuier for purposes in connection with doing his building work. So, if someone gets injured by something he does then they can use the Occupiers Liability Act to sue him, rather than you, for damages as he is the occupier in respect of the building activities.

[JonathanL]

Were a funny lot us farmers.

I, like most, am protective of my land and tend to get irate when people take the "mick" and assume they can do as they wish. Perhaps I'm soft but I am only to pleased to give Mrs Whoever down the road permission to walk her dog over my fields. Likewise a couple of local mountain bike enthusiasts have permission to ride over the farm as have locals with horses. One chap has permission to shoot but not on Sunday.

 

Back along, a chap I had given shooting permission to took it into his head to remonstrate with Mrs Whoever one morning, telling her she was spoiling his shooting, that he had the shooting rights and that she was trespassing and should be on her way. It didn't take me long to tell him the only rights he had was to be on his way.

 

No one has any rights on my land, people may have my permission or authority, call it what you will, to do something on my land but they most definitely do not have any rights. If they start to think or act as if they do they are soon on their bike.

 

If someone with permission was to be classed legally as the occupier, than I for one would no longer be granting permission.

 

I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick here. Just because someone is an occupier in law doesn't mean they have a right to sell your land or anything. Whether someone is an 'occupier' or not is really just a legal statement of fact and is determined by how much control they exercise over the land. Also, just because they exercise some control does not mean that they have all the rights of an owner.

 

You have probably unwittingly allowed people to be occupiers in the past without even realising. If you get a builder in and tell him to build you a barn in the corner of some field the first thing he will probably do is corden off the particular area for heald and safety purposes. He is then the occupier of that area but only in as far as his building work goes. You are an occupier too, of course.

 

In many cases it is far more advantageous in these type of circumstances because although you are both occupiers, only the builder is the occupier for the purposes of carrying out the construction work and so only he can have a liability to third parties under he Occupiers Liability Act. If he leaves a foundation uncovered and someone falls into it in the dark and is injured then only he carries any liability because you are not an occupier for those purposes.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Just for fun................

 

Which leads us, David, nicely back to where we started, debating the difference between "right" and "permission".

 

If you have permission to do something then you have a right to do it. Permission to shoot on someones land amounts to a right as permission means you are not a trespasser. Just because something is a right doesn't mean it can't be removed. Permission can be revoked (subject to any contractual provisions there may be) at which point you woul lose the right to shoot.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Not to mention the fact that I simply can't see what shooting rights and the use of the term 'occupier, in this context, have got to do with a bit of a ****-up about a brewery. Anyone would think they were on about the Black Cat!

 

You have to apply the definition goven in the case a few posts up.

 

'an occupier is the one who has immediate supervision and control and the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of other persons’'

 

 

That being the case a person who had the sole shooting rights to a piece of land would most certainly be an occupier as he has supervision of the land (for the purpose of shooting) and can permit or prohibit other from entering for that purpose.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

thing is who set the firearms act ,home office or the police,the firearms act say one thing your local police say another !!!!

 

Parliament passed the Firearms Act. Only Parliament can pass Acts.

 

J.

[storme37]

_{I had a similar (but different) discussion with a magistrate a while back about law.}

 

 

magistrates are not usually legally trained unless he's a stipendiary magistrate

[CharlieT]

You have to apply the definition goven in the case a few posts up.

 

'an occupier is the one who has immediate supervision and control and the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of other persons’'

 

 

That being the case a person who had the sole shooting rights to a piece of land would most certainly be an occupier as he has supervision of the land (for the purpose of shooting) and can permit or prohibit other from entering for that purpose.

 

J.

 

J

 

And therein, in my opinion, lies the whole crux of the matter.

 

In the legislation the word right was specifically chosen and in this context applied to the occupier. A right by definition, in this case a legal right not to be confused with moral right, confers on the possessor the legal right of control , supervision and entry by persons onto the land. Something that someone with permission to shoot does not legally have.

 

Which is why I say that being granted permission to shoot does not make that person a legal occupier and therefore does not confer on him the benefits of an occupier.

 

C

[wymberley]

If you have permission to do something then you have a right to do it. Permission to shoot on someones land amounts to a right as permission means you are not a trespasser. Just because something is a right doesn't mean it can't be removed. Permission can be revoked (subject to any contractual provisions there may be) at which point you woul lose the right to shoot.

 

J.

 

So, what you're saying is that we've now got permission, right and rights. It get more complicated by the minute. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that shooting lore dictates that when anyone mentions the word 'right', it's always in the plural and means the entitlement to shoot game. 'Permission' is normally related to non game shooting unless permission to shoot game is specifically given by the holder of the rights. We all know where we stand so adding a third element just confuses an already complicated issue even further.

[JonathanL]

J

 

And therein, in my opinion, lies the whole crux of the matter.

 

In the legislation the word right was specifically chosen and in this context applied to the occupier. A right by definition, in this case a legal right not to be confused with moral right, confers on the possessor the legal right of control, supervision and entry by persons onto the land. Something that someone with permission to shoot does not legally have.

 

Which is why I say that being granted permission to shoot does not make that person a legal occupier and therefore does not confer on him the benefits of an occupier.

 

C

 

I tend to agree, to an extent. It would all depend upon the specific nature of the agreement you had. If you are the only one allowed to shoot on the land at any given point then you by definition have the right to exclude anyone else who wants to partake in that particular activity. That could even be a very informal arrangement like 'Yeah mate you can shoot but only you any your mates'. I think that would make you an occupier.

 

J.

[CharlieT]

J

 

True formal shooting rights aside.

 

When I give someone permission to shoot I simply write on farm headed paper, dated and signed.

"I hereby give Jonathan L of ******* authority to shoot vermin on *********** Farm with any calibre firearm provided he is a member of the Countryside Alliance. Shooting must not take place on Sunday".

 

The above is, i suspect, a typical example of the sort of permission people are given. Such wording does not state how many people at any one time I have given such permission to nor does it suggest the holder has the sole permission. Not by any stretch of the imagination can such permission be construed as conferring a right, or so my solicitor informs me. It most certainly does not give the holder the right to exclude anyone from doing anything on my land.

 

C

Edited August 29, 2012 by CharlieT

[Robl]

Interesting bit of case law here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_v_E_Lacon_%26_Co_Ltd

 

After reading that I would suggest the term occupier has been used in the shooting law to make it clear that only someone with legal liability can loan a shotgun and supervise.

By making the person who loan an ‘occupier’ then they are liable for any injury caused by their negligence in supervising the gun, or in fact if they lend a faulty gun, under the ‘Occupiers Liability Act 1957’.

If you have permission to shoot on a piece of land, and have therefore taken on legal liability for any accidents shooting on that land, then you would seem to be the occupier.

 

 

A quick google (wiki and other sites) find a few mentions that ‘occupier’ is not defined in law, and can only be defined by case law.

 

In terms of land there seems to be three relevant definitions.

Trespasser.

Visitor

Occupier.

 

Trespasser speaks for itself.

 

Visitor is someone who has entered the public area of the land but has not trespassed.

A friend visiting, a salesman knocking on the door, perhaps even a rambler walking round the edge of a field (rights of way laws notwithstanding).

 

Occupier is then someone who has explicit permission to be on the land for a reason.

So long as they remain within their remit then they are considered occupiers for the purpose of that remit.

So, if you have permission to shoot in a field, you are the occupier of that field in terms of shooting law.

 

 

There’s a few assumptions in what I’ve written.

But I think it’s a fairly good argument.

Especially the first point about ‘occupier’ being used to define someone with legal liability.

[CharlieT]

Rob

 

You are falling into the trap of defining "occupier" in the wrong context. In this instance case law regarding liability under the occupiers liability act. That particular bit of case law does not set a president for defining occupier under the WCA 1981.

 

You have chosen to ignore the below directive defining the meaning of the term occupier, as used in this instance. You can bet your bottom dollar that government legal advice was sought during the drafting of the 1981 WCA and that the term occupier used in this context is the category of person described below.

 

Firearms Consultative Committee in their 5th Annual report recommended that the provisions of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted. This states that ‘“occupier” in relation to any land, other than the foreshore, includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game or fish’.

 

This being the case what you really need to be debating, as I have said all along, is the term "right" as used in the above. Because, whoever legally has that right can be classed as an occupier.

[David BASC]

Accepted - but the two key issues are this:

In terms of legal inability to third parties, occupiers liability Act 1957 or indeed 1984 in England & Wales – both the shooter(s) and of course the land owner who allows the activity could be held liable for a third party loss – which is why any land owner who lets people go shooting on their land should insist the shooter(s) are insured AND that the shooters policy indemnifies the landlord too

Secondly, we can debate until the cows come home who is the occupier in terms of the firearms act and borrowing guns – the arbiter will be the police in your locality- so as I said earlier please make sure you contact them to ask.

David

[al4x]

the funny thing is David that opinion could vary from one officer to another and unless in writing is a waste of time talking to them. What we have is a statement that surely would mean any case against someone would fall apart. The fact that the law of the land should vary county to county is fundamentally wrong really I actually wonder if you as an organisation could do a simple questionnaire and hand it out to the respective chief constables and clear it up for everyone in a simple operation. Then when the results are in go back to ones that say no and ask why on earth does their opinion vary from xyz number of forces and the information handed out to them.

It would be a way of clearing up once and for all a number of questions that are murky in firearms law, The slight thing is that when there are no cases of prosecutions is it something that needs clarification.

[David BASC]

I agree, get it in writing!!

 

David

[Robl]

Rob

 

You are falling into the trap of defining "occupier" in the wrong context. In this instance case law regarding liability under the occupiers liability act. That particular bit of case law does not set a president for defining occupier under the WCA 1981.

 

You have chosen to ignore the below directive defining the meaning of the term occupier, as used in this instance. You can bet your bottom dollar that government legal advice was sought during the drafting of the 1981 WCA and that the term occupier used in this context is the category of person described below.

 

Firearms Consultative Committee in their 5th Annual report recommended that the provisions of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted. This states that ‘“occupier” in relation to any land, other than the foreshore, includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game or fish’.

 

This being the case what you really need to be debating, as I have said all along, is the term "right" as used in the above. Because, whoever legally has that right can be classed as an occupier.

 

 

I think that both what you have written and what I wrote above are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, I think we’re both saying the same thing, but from a different direction.

 

In terms of ‘rights’ to shooting.

As I understand it, we’re not talking about ‘human rights’ or ‘self evident rights’ instead we’re just talking about being given permission by the land owner, or owning the land yourself.

 

I think it’s fair to say, if someone is legally allowed to shoot in a place, then the law expends to someone under that persons supervision.

 

(notwithstanding shooting clubs rules)

[Catweazle]

Sporting "Rights" exist as a legal entity, they can be bought, sold and owned separately to the property. The owner of Sporting Rights has the right to shoot there, it is not a permission from the landowner, it is a right. The landowner ( or tenant ) also has a right to control vermin ( to protect farmers interests ).

 

There lies the difference, a permission is not a right, the landowner or owner of sporting rights can withdraw "permission to shoot" from you at any time they like for any reason. If you just have permission to shoot on a farmers land you don't have the right to shoot there.

 

I don't believe that a man with permission to shoot is an "occupier" because he has no rights and no control over the land. He cannot grant permission for other people to use the land for any reason, therefore he has no control over the land.

[CharlieT]

And just to add a right is something that can not be taken away. Permission can.

[Robl]

Fair enough.

But, I would still suggest that there’s too much emphasis being put on semantics of words rather than the general intent of the law in this discussion.

 

I would suggest that if a landowner gave me permission to shoot on his land, and also gave me permission to take a friend along without an SGC under my supervision using my gun, I would be breaking no law.

 

I would suggest the reason there is no case law confirming or rebutting that suggestion is because it’s never actually come to court.

And it’s not gone to court because nobody has ever been arrested or charged with such an offence, because it isn’t an offence.

 

The comment about having permission of the land owner for the friend is just to cover all the basis.

I’d assume that whatever agreement was in place with landowner should cover you taking a friend with their own gun licence or without – but as several people have said, it’s always worth checking with the land owner.

[al4x]

And just to add a right is something that can not be taken away. Permission can.

 

Unless you rent the shooting rights.............

[CharlieT]

Unless you rent the shooting rights.............

 

And if you rent the shooting rights they can not be taken away during the term of the agreement. So as I said, the right can not be taken away at a moments notice.

[al4x]

the term as mentioned doesn't mention "rights" it says any right of Hunting or shooting the key being any

[Robl]

If we want to get really pedantic then we can argue the difference between the legal terms of ‘Shooting Rights’ and the ‘right’ to shoot being different things.

(my capitalisation for ease of reading)

 

When asked by the police if I had a right to shoot in a certain field I can say I have because I have permission from a farmer (and then show the letter).

Permission to do something and the right to do something are often synonymous.

 

If the law required someone to have Shooting Rights to the land it would have been much more specific.

As it is, the law says ‘any right of hunting…’.

It could be argued that permission to shoot on someone’s land could be described as a right to hunt, even though the shooter doesn’t own the ‘Shooting Rights’.

 

The point of the law is, I believe, to allow it to act against people who are shooting on land where they have no right to shoot.

It’s not to try and trick people into making a mistake.

 

 

Edit - seems that Al4x saif the same thing a minute before. Damn my slow typing and attention to detail.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Robl

[wymberley]

Fair enough.

But, I would still suggest that there’s too much emphasis being put on semantics of words rather than the general intent of the law in this discussion.

 

 

That brings us nicely back, Robi, to the debate as to whether the intention of the clause was to permit Tom, Richard and Harry to shoot without the requirement for a licence or to offer an occasional exemption under exceptional circumstances.

[al4x]

not quite its to allow a SGC holder to accompany a non holder simple as that. One of the ways an awful lot of people get introduced to the sport.