a mate of mine has had permission to shoot on some land . he does not hav an fac but has been stalking with me and has the bug.if he wants to use my rifle as an estate rifle does the permission need to be in my name or is it ok in his . any advice would be greatful.
a mate of mine has had permission to shoot on some land . he does not hav an fac but has been stalking with me and has the bug.if he wants to use my rifle as an estate rifle does the permission need to be in my name or is it ok in his . any advice would be greatful.
ok do you know if it needs to state deer stalking or will the right to shoot be enough
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
thanks norm very helpful . is there a prewritten letter that you know of that i could fill with my details and print. i just want to get it spot on . regards ken
I was under the impression that shooting permission was not the same as shooting rights. Is there a distinction between the two?Therefore if you have any right of hunting (ie permission) then this make you an occupier of the land in question
I was under the impression that shooting permission was not the same as shooting rights. Is there a distinction between the two?
I was under the impression that shooting permission was not the same as shooting rights. Is there a distinction between the two?
I was under the impression that shooting permission was not the same as shooting rights. Is there a distinction between the two?
There is usually a difference as simply being given permission to shoot would not usually give you the shooting (etc) rights to the land. Unless there is a lease or other form of contract the person giving permission to an individual to shoot, could give similar permission to others.
When a person actually holds the shooting rights, subject to the terms of their lease, that person may be able to give permission to others to shoot. Such permission would not confer the shooting rights to the person receiving permission.
This is why it is so important that a person receiving permission to shoot should establish exactly what that permission authorises them to do. Equally important to establish what it does not include. Many cherished permissions have been lost through misunderstandings.
Interestingly, this very subject cropped up at during a recent ACPO meeting. I copy below the minutes from the meeting. Looks like we will have a definitive answer in due course.
13. DEFINITION OF ‘OCCUPIER’
13.1 Clarification was sought as to the definition ‘occupier’ in respect of a certificate holders
authority to shoot over land and their ability to invite a non-certificate holder(s) to shoot
on that land, in their presence and using their gun.
13.2 Current guidance only provides a broad definition in that it states an ‘occupier
includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting or fishing’. Members agreed
that the word ‘right’ was ambiguous therefore following discussions, DCC Marsh proposed that a distinction be drawn between the word ‘right’, which could be argued makes an individual an occupier, versus ‘permission’. He asked Mr Widdecombe to draw out the distinction more explicitly in the new guidance.
Action: Mr Widdecombe to explicitly define the distinction between ‘right’ and
‘permission’ within the new Home Office guidance in relation to the term
‘occupier’.