Is this true

[Robl]

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.

 

I’ll agree with Al4x again.

It’s neither.

 

The law is to allow exactly what it says.

A person with a licence can take an unlicensed person out for a shoot.

 

Whether that happens a lot or happens occasionally is irrelevant - as is the exact reason why it’s happening.

It could be a training session, a guided corporate day out, a mate just showing another mate their hobby – it doesn’t matter.

 

 

The law isn’t there to restrict usage of shotguns as such, it’s there to make sure shotgun usage is safe.

So long as the SGC holder is keeping the non-SGC person safe then everyone is happy.

[wymberley]

I’ll agree with Al4x again.

It’s neither.

 

The law is to allow exactly what it says.

A person with a licence can take an unlicensed person out for a shoot.

 

Whether that happens a lot or happens occasionally is irrelevant - as is the exact reason why it’s happening.

It could be a training session, a guided corporate day out, a mate just showing another mate their hobby – it doesn’t matter.

 

 

The law isn’t there to restrict usage of shotguns as such, it’s there to make sure shotgun usage is safe.

So long as the SGC holder is keeping the non-SGC person safe then everyone is happy.

 

Think we'll have to agree to disagree. I thought that we were discussing what an occupier can or cannot do or what an occupier is or is not and not just Joe Bloggs who happens to have a licence.

[wymberley]

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.

 

Concise and straight to the point.

[al4x]

try this one again wymperley its not quite any joe bloggs with a SGC and look at the "ANY"

 

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’.

 

or are we saying that now permission being granted doesn't let you shoot on the ground? as if not then you are exhibiting a right to shoot on the ground.

[wymberley]

try this one again wymperley its not quite any joe bloggs with a SGC and look at the "ANY"

 

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’.

 

or are we saying that now permission being granted doesn't let you shoot on the ground? as if not then you are exhibiting a right to shoot on the ground.

 

That's the problem that we have, al4x, and we'll be having the same debate 10 years hence (I think that'll have to be the PW 'we', as I think I'll be out of it by then) unless it gets sorted one way or the other.

 

I'm pretty sure that you don't mean 'any' land or 'any' person as 'person is incorporated in the phrase that follows it.

 

Yep, I hear what you say, but I take that 'any' as any of the rights as are then detailed. In other words, if you hold any of them (plus any not detailed) you become "any person" and therefore by implication, an occupier.

[Robl]

Think we'll have to agree to disagree. I thought that we were discussing what an occupier can or cannot do or what an occupier is or is not and not just Joe Bloggs who happens to have a licence.

 

We were discussing the semantics of the word ‘occupier’, but that was a digression from the original question about the law in general.

‘Occupier’ has already been defined by the Firearms Committee meeting.

I think it’s quite clear.

 

If a person is legally allowed to shoot on some land then they can take a single guest shooting with them to shoot under their SGC.

 

(That’s not to say the land owner shouldn’t be asked first or that gun clubs may have different rules.)

[CharlieT]

Robl

 

The law is, to me, quite clear. It does not say what you are quoting above. The law uses the term "right", now please define that word in this context.

 

ie. is there a difference between a right and someone who has merely been given permission.

 

I don't understand your above statement "If a person is legally allowed to shoot on some land then they can take a single guest shooting with them to shoot under their SGC". Are you suggesting that if I give someone permission to shoot on my land they then have a legal right to take someone with them ( because I can assure you they don't unless I have given my permission) or are you say that only someone with a right to shoot on my land can take a single person shooting with them.

[Robl]

I am saying that if you give someone permission to shoot on your land, and also permission for them to take another person under their SGC, then no laws have been broken.

 

 

The word ‘right’ in the context of the law means to me that it’s is allowed.

I see it as a simple black or white situation.

If I don’t have a right to shoot where I am shooting I can expect to be arrested, if I do have a right to shoot there then it’s all legal.

You give me permission to shoot on your land, if I am challenged by a policeman I can say that I have a right to shoot there.

 

That’s not the same as owning the shooting Rights. (my capitalisation)

It doesn’t mean I’ll call the EU court of Human Rights if you take away my permission.

It is merely the opposite of not having a right to shoot there.

 

If you gave me permission to shoot on your land, and I took a friend, then I assume it would come down to an argument about whether permission was implied or not and whether it was in anyone’s interest to prosecute.

Worst case scenario would probably be a loss of SGC, or some re-education from an FEO in terms of what permission means – although as said, it would depend on whether anyone wanted to make an example or press charges.

In any case, it would be sensible for any shooter to check with the land owner before taking a friend along.

[wymberley]

As far as I'm aware, there's only one set of laws that were word perfect from the outset and as such are, literally, set in stone: Ten of them in all.

 

All others are written by fallible authors and as such there is sometimes a requirement to look at the intention of the legislation. Where this happens in court it's usually classed as a test case (laymans' term?) and a precedent set (or some such expression).

 

Until that happens in this example, this somewhat pointless debate will continue to be rolled out at irregular intervals. I remain of the opinion that the intention here is to relax the law on occasion in exceptional circumstances. This seems logical to me as otherwise a ruling that, 'any person not holding a licence may shoot with a shotgun borrowed from a licence holder in the presence of that lender (or words to that effect)' would make much more sense. All one has to do is decide which of the two was the original intention

[JonathanL]

We were discussing the semantics of the word ‘occupier’, but that was a digression from the original question about the law in general.

‘Occupier’ has already been defined by the Firearms Committee meeting.

I think it’s quite clear.

 

If a person is legally allowed to shoot on some land then they can take a single guest shooting with them to shoot under their SGC.

 

(That’s not to say the land owner shouldn’t be asked first or that gun clubs may have different rules.)

 

It hasn't. The FFC (which doesn't actually exist anymore) had no authority to define something in law. Only the courts (or Parliament) can do that.

 

J.

[Robl]

It hasn't. The FFC (which doesn't actually exist anymore) had no authority to define something in law. Only the courts (or Parliament) can do that.

 

J.

 

 

To be fair, I never said it had been defined in law, merely defined.

I guess anyone can try and define it in a different way if they want to, it is the internet after all.

I've also mentioned that before that until there’s a test case then we won’t get an known definition.

(someone else said that again more recently)

 

But I stand by my interpretation of the law.

 

Anywhere I can legally shoot, I can take a single friend to shoot with me. I can loan them my gun and supervise them under my SGC.

(notwithstanding permission from the landowner, Shooting rights holder or gun club where appropriate)

 

I’d be interested to see if anyone has a different interpretation of the law in general rather than just picking apart bits of it.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Robl

[JonathanL]

I am saying that if you give someone permission to shoot on your land, and also permission for them to take another person under their SGC, then no laws have been broken.

 

 

The word ‘right’ in the context of the law means to me that it’s is allowed.

I see it as a simple black or white situation.

If I don’t have a right to shoot where I am shooting I can expect to be arrested, if I do have a right to shoot there then it’s all legal.

You give me permission to shoot on your land, if I am challenged by a policeman I can say that I have a right to shoot there.

 

That’s not the same as owning the shooting Rights. (my capitalisation)

It doesn’t mean I’ll call the EU court of Human Rights if you take away my permission.

It is merely the opposite of not having a right to shoot there.

 

If you gave me permission to shoot on your land, and I took a friend, then I assume it would come down to an argument about whether permission was implied or not and whether it was in anyone’s interest to prosecute.

Worst case scenario would probably be a loss of SGC, or some re-education from an FEO in terms of what permission means – although as said, it would depend on whether anyone wanted to make an example or press charges.

In any case, it would be sensible for any shooter to check with the land owner before taking a friend along.

 

I think you are correct here. If you look at the definition of 'occupier' in the WCA it does not say that to be an occupier must own the shooting or hunting rights (which is a property right). It says that you merely have to have a right of hunting or shooting. That simply means that you are allowed to lawfully do it which is the same as having permission.

 

However, I'm not convinced that BASC is correct to adopt the definition in the WCA. The Firearms Act preceeds the WCA by thirteen years and, importantly, the term 'occupier' (for the purposes of the OLA) had been defined by the House of Lords in Wheat v Lacon back in 1966. You cannot apply a definition contained in an entirely seperate Act and which wasn't even enacted until over a decade later.

 

It cannot be any other way, when you think about it, because how would someone prosecuted in 1968 be able to apply the definition in an Act which didn't even exist at the time?

 

As far as I can see the word 'occupier' used in sec.11(5) of the '68 Act would more likely be held to be closer in defintion to that in Wheat v Lacon rather than that defined in the WCA. So, basically, for the purposes of sec.11(5) the land owner and/or someone who was the owner of the shooting rights would be the occupier and not someone who was an invitee, even though they would probably be an occupier fot thepurposes of the WCA.

 

J.

Edited September 3, 2012 by JonathanL

[JonathanL]

To be fair, I never said it had been defined in law, merely defined.

I guess anyone can try and define it in a different way if they want to, it is the internet after all.

I've also mentioned that before that until there’s a test case then we won’t get an known definition.

(someone else said that again more recently)

 

But I stand by my interpretation of the law.

 

Anywhere I can legally shoot, I can take a single friend to shoot with me. I can loan them my gun and supervise them under my SGC.

(notwithstanding permission from the landowner, Shooting rights holder or gun club where appropriate)

 

I’d be interested to see if anyone has a different interpretation of the law in general rather than just picking apart bits of it.

 

And, to be fair, you did because you followed that sentence with;

 

'If a person is legally allowed to shoot on some land then they can take a single guest shooting with them to shoot under their SGC.'

 

That suggests that you are saying that the FCC had defined a point of law.

 

Also, I don't really follow your logic. How do you end up at the conclusion that it means that you can only take one person shooting with you? There is nothing which says that. The section of the Act says that a person without a certificate can use a shotgun in the occupiers presence. I see no reason as to why that doesn't apply to more than one person.

 

J.

[al4x]

On a side issue would it be in the public interest to prosecute someone who had permission to shoot and took his son, lent him a gun and supervised him shooting.

Something that happens every week during the season on plenty of shoots.

I can't see any instance where arguing it wouldn't be a gross waste of public money.

[Robl]

^{I think some meaning may have been lost in typing.}

^{I may not have been clear where I was posting an opinion or a legal fact.}

^{No worries though.}

^{Good point about multiple people though.}

^{I wonder if it would depend on how many shotguns there were being used at the time.}

^{With three guests and one shotgun you’re only supervising one at a time.}

^{To repeat a previous comment.}

^{The law is there to make sure we’re all safe.}

^{So long as the land owner has given permission, so long as everyone is being safe, so long as the gun us legally owned then I believe no law is being broken.}

^{We know that people take friends shooting.}

^{We know that it’s never come to court (because if it had there would be a precedent).}

^{So I think it’s just a case of using some common sense, checking with land owner, being sensible and generally not acting like a cock if the police do arrive.}

[JonathanL]

On a side issue would it be in the public interest to prosecute someone who had permission to shoot and took his son, lent him a gun and supervised him shooting.

Something that happens every week during the season on plenty of shoots.

I can't see any instance where arguing it wouldn't be a gross waste of public money.

 

I entirely agree. It would be extremely unlikely, I would think. However - there is still a point at issue because you have to ask whether you would want to rely on the point as an offence is still, tecnically, being comitted. It wouldn't take much for an ambitious new licensing manager to try to make a name for him self by rigourously enforcing pointless laws or using it to screw someone he didn't like.

 

We were discussing the issue of disclosing convictins/cautions on another thread. Coincidentlly, there has just been a case this week in Sunderland where a guy was prosecuted for not declaring a convition. The story was that he didn't declare that he had a convition five years previosly for drunk and disorderly. Actually, I think there were wires crossed someone because the article mentioned 2005 which is seven years ago. Anyway, I was quite surprised that they even bothered prosecuting him, they obviously knew that he had the conviction as it came straight up on their systems. To be honest, failing to declare (for whatever reason) must be a not uncommon event yet we don't hear of people being prosecuted for it. To do so really serves no public purpose when you think about it, you just refuse the cert and save all the court time and expence especially when he was only fined £100 for it.

 

However! The article also said that he had previously had an FAC which had been yanked in 2005 because of his conviction along with a caution for assault. That changes the picture a bit as it makes it look like the prosecution was brought as a point of principle to make sure that the guy never gets a ticket again. I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing but it serves to demonstrate that the polce/CPS can use the law to make a point if they want to.

 

A person using a shotgun on land where the SGC holder is not an occupier may never, ever, be prosecuted. However, they could be if the police wanted to push the issue.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

^{I think some meaning may have been lost in typing.}

^{I may not have been clear where I was posting an opinion or a legal fact.}

^{No worries though.}

 

^{Good point about multiple people though.}

^{I wonder if it would depend on how many shotguns there were being used at the time.}

^{With three guests and one shotgun you’re only supervising one at a time.}

 

^{To repeat a previous comment.}

^{The law is there to make sure we’re all safe.}

^{So long as the land owner has given permission, so long as everyone is being safe, so long as the gun us legally owned then I believe no law is being broken.}

^{We know that people take friends shooting.}

^{We know that it’s never come to court (because if it had there would be a precedent).}

^{So I think it’s just a case of using some common sense, checking with land owner, being sensible and generally not acting like a cock if the police do arrive.}

 

There is no requirement to supervise the person. They only need be in the presence of the occupier to satisfy the requirement of the section.

 

That is another word, 'presence', which is not defined either. Does it mean immediately next to or within sight or earshot? The FCC took the latter view but, again, who knows?

 

I agree that it is unlikely to ever come to court but see my point above on the matter. If the police wanted to make an example then they could. Even if it didn't come to court it could be used a as a reason to yank your ticket.

 

J.

[Robl]

Here’s a fun question.

 

I have an SGC.

My brother in law doesn’t, but he does own a few acres of land.

 

If we go shooting together on that land and he uses my shotgun under my supervision is that breaking the law.

[Robl]

There is no requirement to supervise the person. They only need be in the presence of the occupier to satisfy the requirement of the section.

 

That is another word, 'presence', which is not defined either. Does it mean immediately next to or within sight or earshot? The FCC took the latter view but, again, who knows?

 

I agree that it is unlikely to ever come to court but see my point above on the matter. If the police wanted to make an example then they could. Even if it didn't come to court it could be used a as a reason to yank your ticket.

 

J.

 

Well put, and there’s very little argument one can put in reply to any point in particular.

 

The only thing I try and remember in English law is that we deal with the intent of the law rather than the word of the law.

This is to stop lawyers playing silly ******* with semantics – I believe it may be knows as sharp practice, but may be getting my terms confused.

 

I think the intent of the law is clear in terms of one taking a friend shooting in places where one has legal permission to shoot.

[al4x]

I entirely agree. It would be extremely unlikely, I would think. However - there is still a point at issue because you have to ask whether you would want to rely on the point as an offence is still, tecnically, being comitted. It wouldn't take much for an ambitious new licensing manager to try to make a name for him self by rigourously enforcing pointless laws or using it to screw someone he didn't like.

 

 

Simply it wouldn't be down to the licensing manager it would be down to an officer who was called out and arrested the holder, this is where the speculation gets a little more wild, licensing do licensing police officers enforce laws. Now the average bobby knows very little about firearms law its glossed over in training but thats about it (taken from a few friends who have learned more from me than on the job)

The only instance I can see this coming up would be in the event of an accident, in which case firstly you have the occupier issue and the potential crime. I'd suggest it would only come up if supervision wasn't being done correctly or close enough then maybe they would think a crime had been committed but then they still have to go to court and try and define occupier in the given context and claim someone with (written) permission didn't meet those criteria.

Its one of those bits I hate when BASC and the likes say just contact your firearms team for their definition, you talk to one person and get his view. If you then get a problem 2 years down the line and that person has left you are screwed if the next person doesn't agree. In this case we can be fairly certain no action would be taken if you had the permission to shoot on a certain area of land and the person with you was there with the owners consent. On the same basis its one of those cases where if as a sgc holder you supervised your son using the landowners gun you would be absolutely in the clear.

When BASC stand up for a local rugby player using his dads .22 out of an upstairs window in view of a road with his dad downstairs. I sure hope they would stand up for Joe Bloggs in this situation were the highly unlikely event to happen.

[JonathanL]

Here’s a fun question.

 

I have an SGC.

My brother in law doesn’t, but he does own a few acres of land.

 

If we go shooting together on that land and he uses my shotgun under my supervision is that breaking the law.

 

If you are not an occupier as far as sec.11(5) of the 1968 Act goes then yes, it is.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Well put, and there’s very little argument one can put in reply to any point in particular.

 

The only thing I try and remember in English law is that we deal with the intent of the law rather than the word of the law.

This is to stop lawyers playing silly ******* with semantics – I believe it may be knows as sharp practice, but may be getting my terms confused.

 

I think the intent of the law is clear in terms of one taking a friend shooting in places where one has legal permission to shoot.

 

That isn't really true though. Someone mentioned a few posts back (may have been yourself) that the difference between us and the yanks is that we deal with the intend of the law and the yanks tend to be more interested in doing things by the book some hell or high water. That is certainly true of the Americans but it isn't true of ou system. Our system is more tended towards justice and doing the right thing and not blindly following the rules at all costs.

 

English law is very much about following the letter of the law. There is a case somewhere, forget its name, where a judge said something to the effect of 'The courts are not so much concerned with defining the intention of Parliament but rather in defining the words of Parliement'.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Simply it wouldn't be down to the licensing manager it would be down to an officer who was called out and arrested the holder, this is where the speculation gets a little more wild, licensing do licensing police officers enforce laws. Now the average bobby knows very little about firearms law its glossed over in training but thats about it (taken from a few friends who have learned more from me than on the job)

The only instance I can see this coming up would be in the event of an accident, in which case firstly you have the occupier issue and the potential crime. I'd suggest it would only come up if supervision wasn't being done correctly or close enough then maybe they would think a crime had been committed but then they still have to go to court and try and define occupier in the given context and claim someone with (written) permission didn't meet those criteria.

Its one of those bits I hate when BASC and the likes say just contact your firearms team for their definition, you talk to one person and get his view. If you then get a problem 2 years down the line and that person has left you are screwed if the next person doesn't agree. In this case we can be fairly certain no action would be taken if you had the permission to shoot on a certain area of land and the person with you was there with the owners consent. On the same basis its one of those cases where if as a sgc holder you supervised your son using the landowners gun you would be absolutely in the clear.

When BASC stand up for a local rugby player using his dads .22 out of an upstairs window in view of a road with his dad downstairs. I sure hope they would stand up for Joe Bloggs in this situation were the highly unlikely event to happen.

 

Only if the occupier were actually there. It must be the occupiers gun and whilst in his presence.

 

J.

[al4x]

and there you have another topic, its not defined either and seems to be within earshot or eyesight depending where you look. You can hear a shotgun a fair way away.

[Robl]

And we’re back to defining occupier.

 

I see the ‘occupier’ as a person who has a legal right to shoot there and valid insurance.

I believe that if they wanted the law to be restricted to the owner they would have said owner or Rights Owner.

They didn’t, they just said occupier.

 

If a farmer gives a local club permission to have a clay shoot in a field then for that duration they are the occupiers of the field in terms of shooting.

If a farmer gives me permission to shoot on his land then I am an occupier in terms of shooting.

 

That’s my opinion.

There are obviously others.

 

But, I see nothing in law being served by restricting the loaning and supervision to the land owner only if they want to give permission to others.

What benefit does it bring?

What’s the point in the restriction?

 

It’s been an interesting discussion to see different points of view.

But I think that’s probably it for me.

 

I’ll happily take my Brother in Law shooting on his land with his permission and my gun and be confident that I’m not breaking the law.

If someone in a similar position chooses not to then that’s their decision.