permision letter

toad

Well-Known Member
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.
 
As far as I know you would need permission to shoot there (as this confers the right for you to let hi, use your rifle under the estate rifle clause).
 
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.

Bit of a minefield there Toad. I would read carefully past debates on the exact meaning of estate rifle and the guidance that BASC gives on this very subject.
 
You are not going to loan your rifle to anybody Toad especially someone without an FAC. However if you are stalking or sitting with someone and you pass them the rifle for a shot, I think you will be fine as long as that person is not prohibited or under age and one of you has permission.
However as 8x57 says look at the BASC guidance on the subject.
 
HAVE A LOOK FELLER MAY HELP YOU OUT AS
PER
BASC BORROWING RIFLES ON PRIVATE PREMISES

Note:The law has recently changed due to “The Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 2010” –
this document has been amended to incorporate the age changes given by the regulations.
Section 16 (1) Firearms Amendment Act 1988 allows a non certificate holder
to borrow a rifle and use it in the presence of either the occupier of private
premises or their servant without holding a firearm certificate. The following
criteria must be met;
The borrower must be aged 17 years or older.
NEW - The occupier or his servant (the lender) must be aged 18 years of age or
older whenever they are lending to the 17 year old age group. For borrowers
aged 18 or older the lending certificate holder may be of any age.
The lender must be the “occupier” of private land or “a servant of the occupier”.
The occupier and/or their servant must hold a firearm certificate in respect of
the firearm being used.
The rifle must be borrowed and only used on land occupied by the person
lending the rifle.
The rifle must always remain in the presence of the lender (The term “in the
presence of” is not defined in law but is generally interpreted as being within
sight and earshot.)
The borrower must comply with the conditions on the lenders’ FAC e.g. the
quarry species.
Notes:
1.
The exemption does not extend to other types of firearm.

2.
Home Office guidance directs;
“The term “occupier” is not defined in the Firearms Acts, nor has a Court clarified its
meaning. However, the Firearms Consultative Committee in their 5th Annual report
recommended that the provisions of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act1
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’. In the absence of any firm definition for firearms purposes, it is
suggested that each chief officer of police may wish to make use of this definition.”
3.
Section 57(4) of the 1968 Act defines “premises” as including any land.
The foreshore is land, however it is predominately Crown or Duchy owned but some
for example, is owned or leased by private individuals, local authorities or other
groups. The rifle exemption may only be utilised on foreshore in England and Wales
where the lender is an owner/occupier/lease holder who maintains the shooting
rights. In the case of a lease, the lease must allow the use of rifles. Crown leases
do not allow the use of rifles. In England and Wales the foreshore is that part of the
seashore which is more often than not covered by the flux and reflux of the four
ordinary tides occurring midway between springs and neaps.
In Scotland there is a general right to recreation on the foreshore
(except onOrkney and Shetland). This includes the shooting of wildfowl using a shotgun only
and where the right has not been taken away by statute, e.g. nature reserves.
Accordingly the public may not use the foreshore to use or lend rifles. In Scotland
the foreshore is the area of land between the high and low water marks of ordinaryspring tides.
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.
 
The person who holds the FAC must either be the occupier of the land or the servant of the occupier. Simple permission does not necessarily make your friend the occupier. What is an occupier for the purpose of taking deer is not defined in law however the accepted view is it is someone who holds the deer rights or is the owner etc.
In the terms outlined by your original post, it would be unlawful for you as the guest to lend the firearm to your friend.

We then move on to the question of 'servant' and that opens a new debate. Once again not defined but could include someone who has permission to cull deer and is allowed to keep the carcass as a 'reward'.
Have a good look at the BASC website and talk to the 'occupier' but do not do as outlined in the original post as matters stand at present.
 
ok do you know if it needs to state deer stalking or will the right to shoot be enough
 
ok do you know if it needs to state deer stalking or will the right to shoot be enough

In order to lend your rifle under the 'estate rifle' exemption, you,(the fac holder) not your friend, will need to become the occupier or servant of the occupier.
You will need the deer included in any permission but that is only a part of the situation. Occupier or servant of the occupier is the other vital factor.
 
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
 


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


Therefore if you have any right of hunting (ie permission) then this make you an occupier of the land in question (under the terms of this act).


BASC standard for shooting permission letter link below
http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm/docid/666E76E9-1296-42AF-8E03447E57CDBE3B
 
Last edited:
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 regret that I do not have a format to offer you however one of the organisations should have something useful.
The document will clearly need to show that you have the right to take deer,either as the 'occupier' or 'servant of the occupier'. The occupier for this purpose being either the owner or the person who has the right to take deer (and authorise you to do so).
Do not be mislead by the 'any hunting permission will do' argument. You and your friend wish to shoot deer, so you would be wise to ensure that deer are specifically included.
Three key words to make sure that your plans are lawful..... Occupier, Servant and Deer.
Some estates have several different occupiers for different purposes, eg. farming, game shooting, fishing, deer stalking etc. You need to be the occcupier/servant for taking deer. If deer are included in other sporting rights/permission,then all well and good but ask for deer to be specified.
Good luck, you are wise to proceed with caution on this aspect of firearms law and it is strewn with potential pitfall.
 
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 believe there's a difference between "Sporting rights", (which generally includes game, wildfowl etc) and deer shooting permission. It's quite common to see land advertised for sale without sporting rights but with deer stalking rights.
I also believe (but not so confidently this time!) that the occupier of the land (e.g. farmer, land manager etc) has the right to control deer, unless specifically stated otherwise in their tenancy agreement or deeds. So, if you farm land over which you do NOT have the sporting rights, this does not necessarily preclude you from controlling deer.
 
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.
 
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.

This is how I have always understood it to be, and certainly how the estate rifle clause is interpreted by my firearms department, however as someone said earlier occupier has never been clearly defined in law.

It would require a test case to so define, don't all rush at once now.:rofl:
 
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’.
 
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’.

Hope burns eternal and clear Home Office Guidance would be helpful. However we should not hold our breath as actions emanating from the Home Office often take an awfully long time.
Members should also be aware that the law regarding borrowing a shotgun and the 'estate rifle' exemption are sometimes mistakenly taken to be identical. Whilst they are deceptively similar, they are not identical, so beware and read each section carefully before taking advantage of it.
Should we benefit from new, unequivocal, Home Office Guidance, it would be a step in the right direction. However and it is a significant caveat, Guidance is just what it says. It is not law. When the new guidance appears it will not be a 'code of practice' but remain guidance as at present, without the authority of legislation.
Unless the term 'occupier' is defined by new legislation, it will only be defined by the outcome of a test case that is taken all the way to the higher courts. As Bogtrotter so rightly said, 'don't be the volunteer' or words to that effect.
 
Back
Top