THE LAW

[marmite]

WHAT IS THE LAW ABOUT FALLING SHOT ON A PROPERTY

[ditchman]

dont do it you will get done....

[eggy74]

cant shoot over the boundary 

[marsh man]

2 minutes ago, eggy74 said:

cant shoot over the boundary 

The op might mean falling shot on his own land / perm  .

This day and age you are more than likely to get a visit from the police , kids are playing in the garden in the nice weather and it's a bit nerve wreaking hearing shot falling on a tin , or glass roof , the parents then think if they look up they could get a bit of shot in the eye , extreme maybe but shot can travel a long way at the right angle with a wind behind it , in other words , stay well clear of any houses to be on the safe side .    MM

[Zoli 12 guage]

51 minutes ago, marmite said:

WHAT IS THE LAW ABOUT FALLING SHOT ON A PROPERTY

as long as ANY projectile does not cross the boundary of ANY land you have the legal right to shoot over,you are fine.

if it does,you could be in a legal mire and deep ****👍 

[enfieldspares]

Air pellets going over the boundary is an offence. Shotgun pellets going over the boundary is not.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171973/Air_weapons_safety_leaflet_6-4.pdf

Edited August 9 by enfieldspares

[eggy74]

11 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Air pellets going over the boundary is an offence. Shotgun pellets going over the boundary is not.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171973/Air_weapons_safety_leaflet_6-4.pdf

But you would still be liable for any damage they cause

[marsh man]

2 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Air pellets going over the boundary is an offence. Shotgun pellets going over the boundary is not.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171973/Air_weapons_safety_leaflet_6-4.pdf

It seem like a mine field to me , would a road be classed as crossing the boundary when the land owner owns either side of the road that is owned by the highways dept 

[PeterHenry]

1 hour ago, marsh man said:

It seem like a mine field to me , would a road be classed as crossing the boundary when the land owner owns either side of the road that is owned by the highways dept 

A road is just a right of way - the legal convention is that the owner(s) on either side of the road own up to mid point - unless otherwise stated in the deeds or on the land registry.

[PeterHenry]

5 hours ago, marmite said:

WHAT IS THE LAW ABOUT FALLING SHOT ON A PROPERTY

Shot failing on other property (as opposed to you trying to activately poach something) is a form of civil trespass - so it's not a criminal / police matter in and of itself. For it to be inforced in the civil courts, the person bringing the claim would have you prove damage occurred as a result, or somesuch.

That said, if somone makes a complaint it may still get you visit from the police - because it involves a gun, and they come down keen on things to do with guns.

Air pellets crossing beyond your permission are a criminal matter - due to law regarding anti social behaviour.

Edited August 9 by PeterHenry

[marsh man]

7 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

A road is just a right of way - the legal convention is that the owner(s) on either side of the road own up to mid point - unless otherwise stated in the deeds or on the land registry.

THANKS for the update , the longer you live the more you learn , if you had a accident with say a Red Deer with no one , or another motor involved , could you claim off the owner of the road where the accident happened ? 

[rbrowning2]

8 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

A road is just a right of way - the legal convention is that the owner(s) on either side of the road own up to mid point - unless otherwise stated in the deeds or on the land registry.

I thought the landowner owners up to the verge along the side of the road, the road is not owned by the landowners otherwise they would need to pay for its maintenance etc.

 

[jall25]

22 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

I thought the landowner owners up to the verge along the side of the road, the road is not owned by the landowners otherwise they would need to pay for its maintenance etc.

 

Thats right - you dont own the road 

[Loki]

Hi

If the 'road' is Highway Maintaned at Public Expence (HMPE) then the Public have a right '...to pass and repass without hinderence...', unless something else applies, such as a Road Closure etc. Highway usully consists of carriageway (road) flanked by verges (or footway), Sometimes the verges are owned by the adjacent Landowner. The Landowner may own the 'subsoil' under the highway, but highway rights 'trump' this and he/she cannot obstruct the highway.

Highway verges are supposed to be maintained by the Local Highways Authority...........if not then it is the Landowners responsibility not to 'obstruct the highway' - much like we should not be letting foliage grow beyond our property to obstruct the footway (also highway).

There is something in Law about Members of the Public 'feeling threatened' etc. on the highway, or a Public Right of Way (PROW) over Private Land, which is likely to be investigated.

Highways Act 1980 prescribes far more details.....

L

 

[PeterHenry]

13 hours ago, marsh man said:

THANKS for the update , the longer you live the more you learn , if you had a accident with say a Red Deer with no one , or another motor involved , could you claim off the owner of the road where the accident happened ? 

I'm fairly sure you wouldn't be able to - as i dont think wild animals are the responsibilityof the owner.

I also didn't express my last post very well - what I should have said, as Loki has below, is that the ownership of the road surface and the land beneath it are two separate things. The owner(s) on either side own the land beneath it up to the halfway way point - so things like mineral rights and sporting rights stay with their respective owners. That's why it counts as poaching if you hit a phesant and put it in your boot.

5 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

I thought the landowner owners up to the verge along the side of the road, the road is not owned by the landowners otherwise they would need to pay for its maintenance etc.

 

Apologies, I didn't make a good job of my original post - the land owner(s) on either side of the road own the land (unless specified otherwise) underneath the road, as well as any other rights.

 

4 hours ago, Loki said:

Hi

If the 'road' is Highway Maintaned at Public Expence (HMPE) then the Public have a right '...to pass and repass without hinderence...', unless something else applies, such as a Road Closure etc. Highway usully consists of carriageway (road) flanked by verges (or footway), Sometimes the verges are owned by the adjacent Landowner. The Landowner may own the 'subsoil' under the highway, but highway rights 'trump' this and he/she cannot obstruct the highway.

Highway verges are supposed to be maintained by the Local Highways Authority...........if not then it is the Landowners responsibility not to 'obstruct the highway' - much like we should not be letting foliage grow beyond our property to obstruct the footway (also highway).

There is something in Law about Members of the Public 'feeling threatened' etc. on the highway, or a Public Right of Way (PROW) over Private Land, which is likely to be investigated.

Highways Act 1980 prescribes far more details.....

L

👍

Edited August 10 by PeterHenry

[enfieldspares]

14 hours ago, marsh man said:

THANKS for the update , the longer you live the more you learn , if you had a accident with say a Red Deer with no one , or another motor involved , could you claim off the owner of the road where the accident happened ? 

Hmm. In theory it belongs to the local authority or if you knock it flying over the hedge into a nearby field then the landowner of that field. The same as a dead pheasant belongs to the person on whose land it falls on.

So if on a boundary day you shoot a pheasant and it (and the lead shot) fall over that boundary you commit no offence in regard to the lead shot (as long as the bird was hit inside your shoot boundary) but you do commit an offence if you retrieve the now dead bird. Offence being theft (as the bird being dead has been "reduced to property") and not poaching which it would be if the bird were still alive. 

Now commonsense says that actually by picking up an taking away roadkill you are actually acting in the public good as, at night, a dead deer in the roadway might cause later a serious accident. And by ditto saving the public purse money by then taking it away and eating it or making it into a piece of taxidermy saving the Council Tax payers the expense of having a contractor come out to dispose of it. However as said Mr Beadle in "Oliver Twist" sometimes the law is an ***.

[Fellside]

6 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

I thought the landowner owners up to the verge along the side of the road, the road is not owned by the landowners otherwise they would need to pay for its maintenance etc.

 

It’s complicated. Let’s just say some roads are owned by private land owners and some aren’t. Many minor country roads started as farm trackways, which ended up being tarred and managed by highways. In this case they are still running over private land today. Other more major roads built via compulsory land purchase ‘in the national interest’ are not privately owned. As ever, there isn’t a clear yes or no….! If only it was that simple.

[marsh man]

I did not realise there were so many in's and out's and twists and turns when it came to shooting near roads .

I remember many years ago a car had a accident with a mature Red Deer , the front of the car was fairly badly damaged and the car owner was going to going to keep the deer , weather he wanted it as evidence or to eat it that I didn't know , as it was on a B road that ran through the estate my boss went and have a look , once he noted the car driver was going to have the dead deer he promptly told him that he owned the land and the deer was on his land , he then thought twice when the car owner said , well if that is the case then I will claim off your insurance , I never did know the outcome but at the time we had Savilles to look after anything like that , that was at the time when venison was making good money , where nowadays the bill from Savilles for sending one letter would cost more than what a herd of deer would make 

[enfieldspares]

56 minutes ago, marsh man said:

I never did know the outcome but at the time we had Savilles to look after anything like that , that was at the time when venison was making good money , where nowadays the bill from Savilles for sending one letter would cost more than what a herd of deer would make 

Love it!

[welsh1]

Question answereed.