Bullets crossing boundaries

[Treedave]

Can anyone point me at a source that lays out the legal situation around a bullet crossing an ownership boundary. I know what I think is best practice or no bullets to cross boundaries of your permission(s), but what is the legal position?

Hypothetical situation.
I am about to take a shot at a deer in the knowledge that the bullet will pass through the deer, pass over the boundary fence and terminate safely in the neighbours hillside.

Any definitive texts deal with this, preferably written in plain English!

 

[Essex stalker]

I was taught that a bullet leaving your boundary is classed as Trespass

 

[stubear]

I was taught that a bullet leaving your boundary is classed as Trespass

Thats my understanding too - Bullets should not leave the boundary of the ground you have permission to shoot on. Not sure if its trespass or classed as something else, but you would find yourself in the brown stuff either way.

 

[enfieldspares]

If it is an air weapon it is now an offence, I believe, if it leaves your property by design or by accident.

To easier answer the OP's question... remove the deer... and ask it would be legal to take a shot at a patch of sand, clump of heather, old tree stump or etc. on a neighbour's hillside.

Personally if you even need to ask I'd have serious doubts about "fitness" to own firearms.

 

[Ray7756]

The bullet must never leave your property / permission, if there is any chance of it doing so it is un unsafe and illegal shot, its simple if you dont have a safe back stop do not take the shot
if you have a safe back stop and take the shot, then tha deer hops over to a neighbours propery and drops dead, you need said neighbours permission to recover the deer, but whatever you do do NOT hop over the boundary with you gun or it is armed trespass
Ray

 

[Pedro]

It's surely shooting over land where you don't have permission and all that potentially entails. It may well be trespass too, although in effect you are trespassing with a bit of lead and not armed trespass as of you had actually walked onto the land with a rifle.

The answer is You either approach the neighbouring landowner and get permission for this if it is likely to be an ongoing issue, or simply don't shoot where this might happen.

 

[Dalua]

As has been said, with an airgun it's a ciminal matter to shoot such that your pellet leaves the boundary of your ground.

Trespass is a civil matter, however. I can't see how a safe shot would become unsafe just because the backstop is on your neighbour's ground.

You're not on the neighbour's ground shooting, and you're not shooting deer on the neighbour's ground: however, whether it is sensible to trespass in that way is debatable.

I'm not sure that a rifle-bullet is any different in law to shot from a S2 shotgun when it comes to its crossing boundaries.

 

[Irish Bob]

I was taught that a bullet leaving your boundary is classed as Trespass

Correct. Not a good idea.

 

[Oracle]

It would amount to a "Constructive Trespass" and, given the scenario described, would most likely call into question any certificate holders "fitness to be entrusted with a firearm"

 

[simonl]

I am about to take a shot at a deer in the knowledge that the bullet will pass through the deer, pass over the boundary fence and terminate safely in the neighbours hillside.

I've a little experience in this scenario from the shotgun perspective - falling shot. Legally I'd assume it's the same thing. It was a civil offence, Trespass (tort) not a criminal one. The other landowner needed to find the evidence and prove it came from my gun.

It's either a safe shot or not. The ownership of the other land doesn't change that.

Edit: And you don't know where the bullet is going anyway.

 

[simonl]

The bullet must never leave your property / permission, if there is any chance of it doing so it is un unsafe and illegal shot,

I don't believe much of that is correct. It's a sensible guideline but I don't think that's very close to where the law sits.

 

[enfieldspares]

In barest terms it would be a breach of condition of being of being shooting over land over which the holder (of the FAC) had not permission to shoot (if the neighbour had not given such permission).

As I posted earlier. Remove the deer from the scenario. It only confuses the issue. The fact is you are taking a deliberate shot in full knowledge that you KNOW AND HAVE ASSESSED THAT IT WILL pass through and carry over you neighbour's land.

So to be clear. From my long ago legal training assessment and acceptance (or also dismissal) of risk before taking an action is an indication or prior intent.

I'll repeat. The law will have it that your assessment of the neighbour's hill as a safe backstop shows clear intent of discharging a shot THAT YOU KNOW WILL PASS OVER THAT LAND.

Would any fit person, on the boundary of their permission, select a patch of sand or bare earth, three, four, five hundred yards inside a neighbour's property and use it to test even one solitary "zeroing" shot against?

It is no less than an absolute breach of condition. Being an act of shooting a s1 rifle at a distant object on somebody else's land over which the holder doesn't have permission to shoot.

The deer is irrelevant. No permission from the neighbour for a shot to cross over his land = breach of condition.

Now irrespective of all the above the Firearms Act creates absolute offences which don't require intent.. aka "mens rea".

Like a lot of motoring offences. Intent is irrelevant. You either committed an action that is prohibited or omitted an action that is required.

But that by, as the OP proposes, this before pulling the trigger assessment of risk you HAVE indicated intent you then compromise any chance of mitigation of the offence.

That the law was changed in reference to air guns IMHO supports my belief that such legislation wasn't thought required for s1 arms as it is already covered by being a breach of condition.

 

[purdeydog]

Your on your permission, shot a deer on your permission and take a safe shot. The bullet ends up in an area you don’t have permission, there’s no offences there. Best practice aside. You’d think there would be I agree.

 

[enfieldspares]

No, I think you are wrong, PD. The shot was taken with deliberate acceptance that it would carry over ground over which the OP doesn't appear to have permission to shoot.

For, to hypothethise, what if birdwatchers had concealed themselves into the neighbour's hillside. To better see some golden plover or black game or grey hen etc.?

They would now be a risk. There are clear safety aspects why the permission requirement condition exists. Such a shot breaches the FAC conditions.

The law will hold IMHO that the "danger zone" into which any deliberately fired shot would fall, after it passes through its intended mark MUST by construction form part of the land over which the holder has permission to shoot.

Elsewise I could set up a simple paper zero target on the side of a cardboard box stapled on top of a fence post inside the boundary of my land.

Knowing fully that the bullets will travel another quarter mile into my neigbours property, over which I've no permission nor agreement, with no fear of any legal or civil consequence.

 

[badbob]

You must have a safe backstop(assuming a pass through or even a miss)
and the safe backstop must be on your land.
This is particularly important, you may be on a remote uninhabited mountain,
but supposing there is a prize bull,a farmhouse, village , even a town
down range..
I dont want someone elses bullet terminating "safely"
on my land (especially if I am there at the time.)
its a civil trespass......unless the bullet causes some
damage, injury ,fear, alarm distress..........then think serious criminal.

stray bullet injuries are rife in some countries
often due to celebratory gun fire
so lets not go there

 

[enfieldspares]

I'm not sure that a rifle-bullet is any different in law to shot from a S2 shotgun when it comes to its crossing boundaries.

It is. FACs carry conditions on where the firearm AND THE AMMUNITION FOR IT can and can't be used and what for. SGCs don't.

So you could legally use you shot gun to break up dried concrete inside a local builder's cement mixer if so asked.

 

[jubnut]

Just use a highly frangible round like V-max

 

[purdeydog]

I said a safe shot and all that entails is a given in any context so let’s dispense with prize bulls and bird watchers. I’m not advocating doing this just being devils advocate. In the given example, one dead deer on your ground, I don’t see a criminal offence. If shown a peace of legislation that says otherwise I’ll gladly accept it. In the zeroing example I agree your breaching your conditions.

 

[jubnut]

I said a safe shot and all that entails is a given in any context so let’s dispense with prize bulls and bird watchers. I’m not advocating doing this just being devils advocate. In the given example, one dead deer on your ground, I don’t see a criminal offence. If shown a peace of legislation that says otherwise I’ll gladly accept it. In the zeroing example I agree your breaching your conditions.

Well yeah but i assume like all stalkers once you have shot your deer you discharge the rest of the magazine in the the air in jubilant celebration right?

 

[SimpleSimon]

I said a safe shot and all that entails is a given in any context so let’s dispense with prize bulls and bird watchers. I’m not advocating doing this just being devils advocate. In the given example, one dead deer on your ground, I don’t see a criminal offence. If shown a peace of legislation that says otherwise I’ll gladly accept it. In the zeroing example I agree your breaching your conditions.

OK, what about if I lean out of my bedroom window with my 22 and shoot a squirrel off my bird feeder in the knowledge that the bullet will pass through and continue at a downward angle where it will then also pass through the fence (which I own) and into the neighbours suitably soft ricochet proof lawn?

Whether it's a yard or a thousand yards you cannot shoot over land where you don't have permission. Breach of your FAC conditions is an offence in itself.