Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: 'hypothetical' question....armed trespass and who's for the chop?

  1. #1
    Established Poster Muddy Springer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    St Vincent and the Grenadines

    'hypothetical' question....armed trespass and who's for the chop?

    Lets say a stalker has a signed contract with an estate to stalk deer on 3 woodlands. He takes it upon himself to one evening take his friend along - who also has a rifle. A concerned neighbour on hearing multiple shots at dusk calls the police as can't get hold of the estate. Police duly arrive and intercept the two chaps leaving the wood with deer, both with rifles. Details taken and as there was some show of paperwork they went on their way. Report sent to estate in the morning from police who understandably went ballistic and immediately suspend said contract and report to police that the chaps friend was there illegally (armed trespass and potentially theft). What do you think will be the repercussions from the police against 'friend' with rifle (revocation probably) and will the same revocation action likely be taken against the stalker, who knowingly allowed/ encouraged said illegal act of armed trespass? Hypothetically is someones now in some deep ****??

  2. #2
    Hadnt his friend been out earlier to zero his rifle on his own ground and simply taken it with him for security reasons without the bullets of course?
    Below is a link to my website.
    Quad sticks

  3. #3
    The following definition would suggest that if this guest came along having been told by the stalker that his presence was okay, then it is difficult to prove he has done any wrong, especially if the actions of the stalker suggest all was okay, parking the vehicle making no attempt to hide it, shots being taken that will obviously be heard etc etc... It may take a bit of explaining but the guest will likely have the stalker confirming that he was invited.

    The stalker who had permission however has been a bit of a tw*t for jeopardising his stalking.

    mens rea[ˈmɛnz ˈreɪə]n(Law) Law a criminal intention or knowledge that an act is wrong. It is assumed to be an ingredient of all criminal offences although some minor statutory offences are punishable irrespective of it

  4. #4
    depends on the contract

  5. #5
    Established Poster Muddy Springer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    St Vincent and the Grenadines
    contract states no guests. its very very clear. Its also in the risk assessment.

  6. #6
    Might it depend on what the contractee told the guest? If the guest was told it was ok how would he know any different?
    Don`t know how the law would look at that as he is `unknowingly` in the wrong.
    "He who kills sow with piglets empties the forest of boar" My neighbours dad on new years eve 2011.

  7. #7
    Being serious I think the offence of armed trespass could be easily proven despite mens rea.
    As an analogy if I was stopped by the police driving my pals car, despite having been told I was insured on his in sewer ants, I'm sure I could be prosecuted, despite the apparent unfairness of the situation, for driving whilst uninsured.
    Below is a link to my website.
    Quad sticks

  8. #8
    A lot would depend o how much of the blame the stalker is willing to take I would think.
    If he cops the lot and tells the police etc that his mate had no idea he was in the wrong then any straight thinking copper would hopefully just dish out a couple of bollockings.
    I've been involved in something similar although concerning a chap rabbiting and all that happened was they named man and his mate were told to leave and any permission was revoked.No police as I reckon the loss of shooting is a big enough kick in the teeth

  9. #9
    I think the talk of the police revoking certificates is a non starter and police will unlikely become further involved despite what the details of any contract is.
    From what you say, the police who attended were obviously satisfied by the explanation given at the time that no crimes were being committed
    If indeed it was decided that in view of the Estates position it was now necessary to re-interview both the persons, it would require full confessions from both that they were in the wrong and knew it! Then there might be enough evidence to submit a report but that's hypothetically speaking.
    Likelihood is that the shooter here has lost his permission with little or no prospect of any further police involvement.

  10. #10
    It is an offence to enter any building, part of a building or land (including land covered by water) with a firearm without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on the person): Section 20 Firearms Act 1968.

    So limulus is right in that you don't need to necessarily know you're doing it to be guilty of it. Whether being told by someone who has the stalking rights that it's okay (and being able to prove he told you that) is a reasonable excuse or not would be a matter for the courts should proceedings be taken, and may only be mitigation on conviction. Reasonable excuse generally means you have permission from the landowner/person that has the shooting rights, as opposed to someone with permission to shoot.

Similar Threads

  1. Hypothetical question - moderators in the wet.
    By charadam in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-07-2013, 21:02
  2. Hypothetical question regarding runners
    By ths84 in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 06-11-2012, 15:42
  3. Hypothetical hygiene regs question.
    By kingstonandy in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 25-09-2009, 15:59
  4. A hypothetical question
    By Chris Rob in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21-06-2009, 23:00
  5. A Hypothetical Question
    By Gazza in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-06-2009, 17:07

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts