Is this true

[JonathanL]

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.

 

With respect, it matters little what you see the occupier as being. It's who the law classes as an ocupier which matters.

 

The Firearms Act was enacted in 1968 so I fail to see how a definition in a totally different and much later Act can be applied to it. For that reason I think that the 'occuier' for these purposes is defined as someone closer to the Wheat v Laycon definition and not simply anyone who has a permissive right to be there.

 

 

 

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.

 

I agree that that is probably the case.

 

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

 

Possibly. It would depend upon your level of control over the property. If you were given an exclusive right to shoot then I think you would be. If it's you and anyone else the farmer lets on the land then possibly not as you have no actual control over the land for the purpose of shooting.

 

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?

 

I entirely agree.

 

J.

[Robl]

With respect, it matters little what you see the occupier as being. It's who the law classes as an ocupier which matters.

 

The Firearms Act was enacted in 1968 so I fail to see how a definition in a totally different and much later Act can be applied to it. For that reason I think that the 'occuier' for these purposes is defined as someone closer to the Wheat v Laycon definition and not simply anyone who has a permissive right to be there.

 

 

 

 

I agree,

In Wheat v Laycon the Judge defined the "occupier" as a person who has sufficient control over the premises to the extent that he ought to realise that lack of care on his part can cause damage to his lawful visitors.

(according to wiki)

 

If I have permission to shoot on a piece of land I think I fall into the definition of Occupier.

It is my duty of care to make sure my shooting does not damage anyone else legally on that land – which includes other shooters.

In the case of a shooter than the control would be in terms of where I shot, where the pellets landed and whether there was anyone in my firing line.

 

If I shot someone by accident then the victim would not be suing the land owner, they would be suing me.

Hence a previous comment about insurance.

[CharlieT]

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.

 

Where in the firearms act does it mention insurance.

 

 

Possibly. It would depend upon your level of control over the property. If you were given an exclusive right to shoot then I think you would be. If it's you and anyone else the farmer lets on the land then possibly not as you have no actual control over the land for the purpose of shooting.

 

Now you're getting closer, much, much closer to my thoughts on the matter.

[Robl]

Where in the firearms act does it mention insurance.

 

 

 

I’m not sure it does.

 

But I’d suggest that if you could show that you had insurance for shooting then you were more likely to be recognised as an occupier.

That is to say, if you are aware of your liability in terms of shooting and had protected yourself against it.

 

I’m not sure it would matter really in the eyes of the law.

I just think that having insurance someone shows the shooter to be more responsible.

[JonathanL]

I agree,

In Wheat v Laycon the Judge defined the "occupier" as a person who has sufficient control over the premises to the extent that he ought to realise that lack of care on his part can cause damage to his lawful visitors.

(according to wiki)

 

If I have permission to shoot on a piece of land I think I fall into the definition of Occupier.

It is my duty of care to make sure my shooting does not damage anyone else legally on that land – which includes other shooters.

In the case of a shooter than the control would be in terms of where I shot, where the pellets landed and whether there was anyone in my firing line.

 

If I shot someone by accident then the victim would not be suing the land owner, they would be suing me.

Hence a previous comment about insurance.

 

I don't think it automatically follows that you are an ocupier. Nor do I think that the definition in Wheat is directly applicable to the word in the context of the Firearms Act although I think its closer than that used in the WCA.

 

You have to read Wheat in the context in which it is intended. The definition of 'Occupier' relates to the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. The OLA deals with an occupiers liability due to the dangerous or defective condition of the premises, and not necessarily what is being done on it. In that case the issue revolved around the condition of a handrail and a light bulb - ie; parts of the land its self. The respondents were found to be occupiers because they had sufficient control over the premises to the extent that lack of care on their part could cause injury.

 

So, if you did apply the definition in Wheat then I don't think you would be an occupier. Although, yes, you could negligently shoot someone you have no control over anything which is defective or dangerous on the land. Their claim against you would be in negligence and not as an occupier. As I say, I think that if you had the exclusive right to shoot so that you could pick and choose who was allowed on it and determine where people shot and when, etc, then I think you would be an occupier but probably not if you were a casual shooter with permission as you have no control over the state of the land - and, in fact, the OLA only applies to 'Fixed or moveable structures' which is even more reason to surmise that the definition of 'occupier' does not equate directly to Firearms Law. Although, as I say, I reckon its closer than that in the WCA.

 

J.

Edited September 3, 2012 by JonathanL

[Robl]

Look at it this way.

If I am walking through a field where there is a right of way (or not) and a shooter accidently shoots me then I have a case to sue someone.

 

I could possibly sue them under the Occupiers Liability Act.

In such a situation would I be suing the land owner or the shooter?

 

I would suggest that the land owner would not be liable as he had given the responsibility for safe shooting to the shooter.

The shooter may not have any control of the state of the land, but it is their responsibility to know where their bullets and pellets will land.

Therefore if the shooter is liable, then the shooter is the Occupier.

Just as a builder building a wall is considered to the occupier if a building accident injured someone.

 

If the shooter isn’t the occupier then any shooting accidents will allow the land owner to be sued even if they aren’t present.

And that just wouldn’t happen - as then no farmer would give out permissions.

 

 

The fact that the shooting laws use the word occupier makes me think they intended the reader to refer to the Occupiers Liability Act, otherwise they would have used a different word.

Which to me, broadly means that the Occupier in terms of shooting is the person who’s responsible for safe shooting.

 

If I was shooting at an organised event than the occupier would be the “health and safety” coordinator of the event management.

But if I am shooting by myself then I am the occupier in terms of shooting at that time, and it’s my responsibility to make sure I’m as safe as possible.

 

I can’t see how, under current law, a shooter can be ‘not the occupier’ but still be liable for their shooting accident.

 

I’m not throwing down a gauntlet here or offering up for a fight – I’m just explaining my thought process.

But, as we’ve all said a few times, until it ends up in court and there’s a precedent set it’s just so much conjecture.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Robl

[hillmouse]

Shooting Rights. These are legally defined and asignable. You may own them, be gifted them, lease them or buy them.

 

Permission is just that. A one off, even if open ended and confers no legal right whatsoever. Permission to shoot can only be granted by an owner or holder of the shooting rights, except in the case of Ground Game.

 

An owner of shooting rights may further confer rights jointly or severally to others, for example a shooting tenant who holds a legally binding lease.

 

Someone renting a commercial shoot day has the permission of the holder of the shooting rights to take game. They do not have a right to do so.

 

Under the Ground Game Act an agricultural tenant has himself, and can confer rights to take Ground Game to an employee or a named person in writing. Those so named have a right to take Ground Game.

 

I would find it highly unlikely a permission holder as opposed to a legal owner, or holder of shooting rights would be classed as an occupier.

 

Further, anyone granted pest control permission by a tenant farmer who does not hold the shooting rights over his farm would also not really have permission as the tenant has no legal basis to grant permission. Ground Game, if in writing, would be covered.

[Robl]

I think that shooting rights should not be confused with the term ‘any rights’.

But we’ve been through that one. (and I’m not sure if ‘Any rights’ was the phrase from the law or the advice any more)

 

 

In terms of being the ‘occupier’ I would suggest it’s perhaps different in different situations.

If you do not feel that you have enough control of the shooting area to be considered the occupier then do not take a non-sgc holder along.

If you do feel that you have enough control of the shooting areas to be considered the occupier then do.

 

If you have exclusive rights to shoot an area, and/or you know that you are the only shooter that day and you have permission to take along a friend then I see no reason why you wouldn’t be considered an occupier for that trip.

Such as me taking my non-sgc holding friend out shooting on his land.

 

If you are one of several people all with spoken permission to shoot vermin on a farm then perhaps you shouldn’t consider yourself an occupier, and should leave the friend at home.

[wymberley]

Shooting Rights. These are legally defined and asignable. You may own them, be gifted them, lease them or buy them.

 

Permission is just that. A one off, even if open ended and confers no legal right whatsoever. Permission to shoot can only be granted by an owner or holder of the shooting rights, except in the case of Ground Game.

 

An owner of shooting rights may further confer rights jointly or severally to others, for example a shooting tenant who holds a legally binding lease.

 

Someone renting a commercial shoot day has the permission of the holder of the shooting rights to take game. They do not have a right to do so.

 

Under the Ground Game Act an agricultural tenant has himself, and can confer rights to take Ground Game to an employee or a named person in writing. Those so named have a right to take Ground Game.

 

I would find it highly unlikely a permission holder as opposed to a legal owner, or holder of shooting rights would be classed as an occupier.

 

Further, anyone granted pest control permission by a tenant farmer who does not hold the shooting rights over his farm would also not really have permission as the tenant has no legal basis to grant permission. Ground Game, if in writing, would be covered.

 

Was with you all the way until the final bullet point. Because you now have me wondering (although it does not affect me), does this include wood pigeon (uproar ensues)? As this does not affect me, I concede things may well have changed without my noticing. Section 2 (2) of the 1981 W&CS Act gives details of the nature of 'authorised persons' permitted to do so which is at odds with what you say about vermin; specifically the tenant having no legal basis to grant permission. Irrespective of the game rights, would the farming tenant not qualify as an occupier?

Edited September 3, 2012 by wymberley

[JonathanL]

Look at it this way.

If I am walking through a field where there is a right of way (or not) and a shooter accidently shoots me then I have a case to sue someone.

 

I could possibly sue them under the Occupiers Liability Act.

In such a situation would I be suing the land owner or the shooter?

 

You would be unlikely to be able to bring a claim of breach of statutory duty under the OLA for a couple of reasons. Firstly, most shooters will not be occupiers. The case-law makes it plain that whether you are an occupier depends upon the level of control which you have over the premises. Specifically, the control you are able to exercise over making the premises safe. A person who has exclusive shooting rights would be an occupier but a casual shooter with permission probably woud not be as he has no control over anything really.

 

Secondly, the OLA really only applies to accidents which occur due to the condition of the premises. Although it says '... or to things done or omitted to be done on them.' there is no case-law on the matter and the body of opinion seems to be that you wouldn't get very far as the more appropriate course of action would be to sue in negligence.

 

I would suggest that the land owner would not be liable as he had given the responsibility for safe shooting to the shooter.

 

No, he wouldn't be liable because the damage would not have been due to the state of the premises. The shooter would be loable in negligence. The land owner may be negligent vicariously if he let someone shoot he knew to be a lunatic but not under the provisions of the OLA.

 

The shooter may not have any control of the state of the land, but it is their responsibility to know where their bullets and pellets will land.

Therefore if the shooter is liable, then the shooter is the Occupier.

 

That wouldn't be a defect or dangerous condition associated with the land though so nothing to do with the OLA. You are misunderstanding point as to who is an occupier. You have to establish that a person is an occupier before you bring an action. You can't say that the person has caused an accident so must be an occupier. That would be like saying that you are an occupier of the public highway because you caused a crash.

 

If the shooter isn’t the occupier then any shooting accidents will allow the land owner to be sued even if they aren’t present.

And that just wouldn’t happen - as then no farmer would give out permissions.

 

No they won't because the accident was not a result of a defect or danger inherent in the premises.

 

I can’t see how, under current law, a shooter can be ‘not the occupier’ but still be liable for their shooting accident

 

Easily. Under the princliples of negligence.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Shooting Rights. These are legally defined and asignable. You may own them, be gifted them, lease them or buy them.

 

Permission is just that. A one off, even if open ended and confers no legal right whatsoever.

 

It does. It grants the legal right to be an the land without trespassing. The WCA doesn't mention 'shooting rights' when referring to an occupier. It says someone has has a right hunting, shooting or fishing. That merely means being able to do something lawfully, it is not the same as actually owning the shooting rights.

 

Someone renting a commercial shoot day has the permission of the holder of the shooting rights to take game. They do not have a right to do so.

 

They have a right to be on the land for that purpose so as to not be a trespasser. Also, they have a contractual right to be there as they have rented the day.

 

I would find it highly unlikely a permission holder as opposed to a legal owner, or holder of shooting rights would be classed as an occupier.

 

I agree. It would all depend on the nature of the agreement though. If the farmer allowed you to install a tree-stand, or hide then that could point towards you being an occupier. Even if not the occupier of the land you would certainly be the occupier of the stand or hide.

 

J.

[Robl]

_{So, sometimes a shooter is an occupier and sometimes not.}

_{Seems sensible enough to me.}

_{Without case law it’s just down to whether or not the individual feels they could argue in court that they had enough to control to be ‘the occupier’ of the area in which they are shooting.}

_{If anyone ever gets arrested for it then we soon have case law, otherwise we’ll just keep doing what we’re doing.}

[JonathanL]

_{So, sometimes a shooter is an occupier and sometimes not.}

_{Seems sensible enough to me.}

 

_{Without case law it’s just down to whether or not the individual feels they could argue in court that they had enough to control to be ‘the occupier’ of the area in which they are shooting.}

 

_{If anyone ever gets arrested for it then we soon have case law, otherwise we’ll just keep doing what we’re doing.}

 

The problem is that we probably won't. Cases which set precidents are appeal cases and not ones at first instance. So, if somone gets arrested & charged but is acquitted because they successfully argue that they person supervising them was the occupier then we still won't have a legally definitive definition of 'occupier'.

 

J.