Orvil
Well-Known Member
This.
I've discussed this exact scenario with a number of FEO's from 3 different area's over the years and this is the general consensus of opinion.
Bullets crossing boundaries
- Thread starter Treedave
- Start date
This.
I've discussed this exact scenario with a number of FEO's from 3 different area's over the years and this is the general consensus of opinion.
A similar discussion was had on here before, regarding the shooting of an animal on land where you have permission, from a position on land where you have permission, but in order to get from A to B the projectile passes over land where you do not have permission (for example, where a bend in the boundary means that a piece of the neighbouring land comes between you and your quarry).
If you were take the shot with an air rifle then a firearms offence would have been committed, because an airgun pellet must not pass outside the boundary of the land where it is lawfully being fired. However, no such law exists in relation to other types of firearm, so if you shot a deer according to the above scenario you would not be committing a firearms offence. (Maybe civil trespass though).
If you were take the shot with an air rifle then a firearms offence would have been committed, because an airgun pellet must not pass outside the boundary of the land where it is lawfully being fired. However, no such law exists in relation to other types of firearm, so if you shot a deer according to the above scenario you would not be committing a firearms offence. (Maybe civil trespass though).
Last edited:
simonl
Well-Known Member
Surely the intent is to shoot the deer and the backstop is good practice?
What's the prohibited action? Civil tort?
This is an interesting argument - but I'm sure you're not suggesting that the absence of 'conditions' on a SGC makes it lawful for me to take my shotgun and shoot on land where I don't have lawful authority to do so.
i can only repeat that if I shoot on land where I have permission to shoot, then I can see no reason why my bullet's landing safely on land where I do not have permission to shoot is anything other than civil trespass. Not desirable, perhaps - but not criminal. I am not using a firearm or ammunition on land where I am not authorised to do so - just as I am not when my bird-shot may land safely over a boundary when I use a shotgun on land where I have permission to do so. I am not using the firearm/shotgun, or ammunition on land where I do not have permission to do so. Bullet and shot are not 'ammunition', and I am not 'using' them other than on the ground where I have authority to do so.
Sensible - under most circumstances perhaps not. But intrinsically neither criminal nor unsafe.
It is a bit like halal slaughter. Saying a prayer before pulling the trigger sanctifies the deed in the eyes of god, and the beast dies a pure death.
All you have to do to make the scenario lawful, is utter these words to the deer: "With this bullet I thee endow". Then on impact the bullet becomes the possession of the deer. What happens next is the responsibility of the deer.
Sorry, just getting caught up in all the hypotheticals...
All you have to do to make the scenario lawful, is utter these words to the deer: "With this bullet I thee endow". Then on impact the bullet becomes the possession of the deer. What happens next is the responsibility of the deer.
Sorry, just getting caught up in all the hypotheticals...
There's an assumption there that if you use a firearm by taking a shot where the projectile(s) go onto someone else's land you aren't using them on that land. But you are, I would suggest. You are using a safe backstop over the border or using that land for the shot to fall safely to ground. All part of taking that shot.
The UK operates under a Common Law system. That there isn't legislation, an Act of Parliament, doesn't mean an action isn't unlawful.
The often quoted mantra to law students was "Show me the Act of Parliament" that says murder is illegal".
There isn't. Indeed murder is, from memory, still charged as "That on XX date, Y did unlawfully kill Z, being contrary to Common Law and the Queen's peace". Or similar words.
Common Law as it derives from the common customs that have evolved over time is often called case law.
So be assured that IMHO it will be a breach of condition and further there will be, somewhere, case law on rifle bullets being fired onto another's land where the firer, lawfully on their own land, doesn't have permission to fire on to the other's land.
The often quoted mantra to law students was "Show me the Act of Parliament" that says murder is illegal".
There isn't. Indeed murder is, from memory, still charged as "That on XX date, Y did unlawfully kill Z, being contrary to Common Law and the Queen's peace". Or similar words.
Common Law as it derives from the common customs that have evolved over time is often called case law.
So be assured that IMHO it will be a breach of condition and further there will be, somewhere, case law on rifle bullets being fired onto another's land where the firer, lawfully on their own land, doesn't have permission to fire on to the other's land.
Last edited:
You may wish to consider this:
A MOTHER-OF-TWO was left shaken after a deer hunting accident saw a bullet shoot through her window and spray shattered glass across her living room floor.
The woman, who asked to remain anonymous, was putting on laundry when she heard a loud "snapping" sound coming from the other room of her house in Woodstock.
Alarmed, she instinctively checked on her two-year-old son in the kitchen before trying to discover that had caused the noise.
She said: "I heard a really loud snapping and cracking sound. I went into the living room and there was glass all over the place. My living room is about 20 feet long but glass was covering about 17 feet of the room."She immediately called the police, who soon linked the incident to deer hunting in the area – a bullet from a rifle was also found on the living room floor.
She added: "The scary thing is I normally have about six toddlers in the living room on Thursday for a play date, but they didn't come this time as both my sons have been ill."
The stay at home mum lives in near Marlborough School in Woodstock with her husband and two sons.
She said: "I'm American and I would expect this in American but not Woodstock. My son could have been out there playing. This is not something I would expect in this neighbourhood."
She added her other son's drum kit was right next to the window and he was thankfully not practising at the time despite having his exam next week.
Moments after the incident, she called her mother-in-law who came to help.
The mother-in-law said: "This was such an irresponsible act. This is a residential area in Woodstock, there is a footpath behind the house. The window completely shattered. The toddler could have easily been in the living room.
"This should not be allowed. My daughter-in-law is very shaken and has been working on getting the house secure."
A spokeswoman for Thames Valley Police Hannah Jones said officers were called at about 12.10pm on Thursday to the house and carried out a search in the area.
A MOTHER-OF-TWO was left shaken after a deer hunting accident saw a bullet shoot through her window and spray shattered glass across her living room floor.
The woman, who asked to remain anonymous, was putting on laundry when she heard a loud "snapping" sound coming from the other room of her house in Woodstock.
Alarmed, she instinctively checked on her two-year-old son in the kitchen before trying to discover that had caused the noise.
She said: "I heard a really loud snapping and cracking sound. I went into the living room and there was glass all over the place. My living room is about 20 feet long but glass was covering about 17 feet of the room."She immediately called the police, who soon linked the incident to deer hunting in the area – a bullet from a rifle was also found on the living room floor.
She added: "The scary thing is I normally have about six toddlers in the living room on Thursday for a play date, but they didn't come this time as both my sons have been ill."
The stay at home mum lives in near Marlborough School in Woodstock with her husband and two sons.
She said: "I'm American and I would expect this in American but not Woodstock. My son could have been out there playing. This is not something I would expect in this neighbourhood."
She added her other son's drum kit was right next to the window and he was thankfully not practising at the time despite having his exam next week.
Moments after the incident, she called her mother-in-law who came to help.
The mother-in-law said: "This was such an irresponsible act. This is a residential area in Woodstock, there is a footpath behind the house. The window completely shattered. The toddler could have easily been in the living room.
"This should not be allowed. My daughter-in-law is very shaken and has been working on getting the house secure."
A spokeswoman for Thames Valley Police Hannah Jones said officers were called at about 12.10pm on Thursday to the house and carried out a search in the area.
She said: "A man was located and informed police that he had been shooting deer on adjacent land.
"It is believed that one of the shots may have ricocheted in to a pane of glass on the door. The man and victim exchanged details. No offences took place and no further police action was required."
Last edited:
purdeydog
Well-Known Member
I try to avoid these type of posts because ‘what ifs’ get out of control. However there’s some silly comments getting said. In a nut shell a murder is a common law offence. You can attempt murder under other laws. Common law offences are created by the courts through case law, custom and judicial hearing etc. To commit murder a person would need to of unlawfully taken a life of a human, still breathing and been of sane mind, plus a few other points to prove. The word murder is written in various places within the CJS so let’s put that one to bed. Common law is a very powerful law and some lives taken, such as the ‘have a go hero’ who unintentionally killed a knife man robbing a shop will use common law as there defence, as recently happened.
If there’s a danger of the prize bull or the bird watchers or now the story above of bullets causing harm then clearly the shot taken wasn’t safe in the 1st place. There’s no such thing as constructive trespass your either trespassing or your not, your either over the limit or you not. And finally the poor squirrel, that’s clearly not safe a shot and there could well be offences there. Bullets do the most unexpected things, always be thinking safety.
Mr Enfieldspares, I agree, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there was a peace of case law loitering about somewhere on this. I’m tagging out now. Happy hunting.
If there’s a danger of the prize bull or the bird watchers or now the story above of bullets causing harm then clearly the shot taken wasn’t safe in the 1st place. There’s no such thing as constructive trespass your either trespassing or your not, your either over the limit or you not. And finally the poor squirrel, that’s clearly not safe a shot and there could well be offences there. Bullets do the most unexpected things, always be thinking safety.
Mr Enfieldspares, I agree, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there was a peace of case law loitering about somewhere on this. I’m tagging out now. Happy hunting.
Last edited:
simonl
Well-Known Member
What's the relevance? In this case the bullet either stops in the deer or carries onto the neighbour's backstop. A story where nearly every child in the village nearly died adds unnecessary diversion surely?
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
The relevance is "no offences took place and no further police action was required". You can never guarantee what a bullet will do once it hits any object so regardless of what you think it may do or where it may end up you never know. Plenty of threads on here of bullets entering a deer perfect broadside and exiting 90° or more and striding other deer or even another part of the initial deer.
Shootist
Well-Known Member
The OP asked for a source which I presume means a law specific or a decided case. Nobody has yet provided one and I have mislaid my references to this situation so neither can I, and given the hostile reactions I have received when I have provided such links I can't be arsed to go find them. FWIW, I recall that the stated scenario would be considered as trespass with a firearm and thus a serious criminal offence.
One thing that is worth remembering is proof. Assuming the hunter in the OP scenario has assessed the shot and the potential backstop as safe and he takes the shot and it was in fact safe, who is going to prove where the bullet went? The situation where there some camouflaged twitcher could be on the receiving end would apply even if the land was still within the permission so is of little relevance and a dead or mangled twitcher is of much greater consequence in any event. If it wasn't safe and bad things happen then as in any unsafe situation the shooter deserves everything he gets.
One thing that is worth remembering is proof. Assuming the hunter in the OP scenario has assessed the shot and the potential backstop as safe and he takes the shot and it was in fact safe, who is going to prove where the bullet went? The situation where there some camouflaged twitcher could be on the receiving end would apply even if the land was still within the permission so is of little relevance and a dead or mangled twitcher is of much greater consequence in any event. If it wasn't safe and bad things happen then as in any unsafe situation the shooter deserves everything he gets.
simonl
Well-Known Member
That would suggest falling shotgun shot would be the same offence, or that the projectile trajectory/energy/type takes it from civil trespass (tort) to a serious criminal one?
Quite.
Well until we do find the relevant case law reference I'll leave it there too. Enjoy your day PD. One question though...if your dog is Purdey would you cat be Boss?
I am of a mind that what the law says in this circumstance is irrelevant. Its not what I, as a holder and shooter of firearms would engage in or with. You know your round would end up on someone else's property in the best possible circumstance, thats not acceptable. If we dont police our own behaviour we should not be shooting shotguns or rifles. Its a question that should never arise except by regrettable accident as with TVP. Just my opinion
Some of the disagreement here seems to arise from people thinking that shotgun pellets landing over a boundary are equivalent to bullets crossing a boundary. It is obvious that they are not comparable. Falling shot has no potential to cause damage to property or person, whereas bullets are extremely dangerous. Therefore I'd suggest that any argument of the type ...'if it's not an offence with a shotgun, then it must be ok with a rifle' is dodgy.
Fwiw, my GUESS is as follows:
I suspect bullets passing over a boundary are likely to be a criminal offence in a situation where that flight is detected - i.e. it causes a nuisance or damage. It may be a civil offence if nobody minds.
I doubt that the criminal offence would arise from contravening FAC conditions but suspect it is covered elsewhere by the Firearms Act or game law. It must be an offence under the text of the Act without having to rely on an offence being created by the contravention of conditions which are discretionary and which the HO guidance indicates shouldn't exist.
Whatever the case is, there's clearly something seriously wrong with the thought processes of anyone who thinks it's a good idea to have their bullets flying over or into property they don't have permission to shoot over.
I wonder how the law on this affects military ranges where shells pass over members of the public, roads etc. (E.g. Lulworth)?
Fwiw, my GUESS is as follows:
I suspect bullets passing over a boundary are likely to be a criminal offence in a situation where that flight is detected - i.e. it causes a nuisance or damage. It may be a civil offence if nobody minds.
I doubt that the criminal offence would arise from contravening FAC conditions but suspect it is covered elsewhere by the Firearms Act or game law. It must be an offence under the text of the Act without having to rely on an offence being created by the contravention of conditions which are discretionary and which the HO guidance indicates shouldn't exist.
Whatever the case is, there's clearly something seriously wrong with the thought processes of anyone who thinks it's a good idea to have their bullets flying over or into property they don't have permission to shoot over.
I wonder how the law on this affects military ranges where shells pass over members of the public, roads etc. (E.g. Lulworth)?
Trespassing with a firearm is covered by Section 20 of the Firearms Act 1968, and amended in the 1994 Act to include an imitation firearm.
One relevant case would be Stanley v Powell [1891], a case that has had a significant impact on the law of trespass ever since. In this case Powell, the defendant, shot at a pheasant and a pellet ricocheted of a tree and wounded Stanley, who was another member of the same shooting party. It was agreed on appeal that Powell was not liable for the accident because the ricochet was deemed to have been accidental, whereas if the act had been wilful or negligent then Powell would have been liable. In the OP's post the shot resulting in the constructive trespass would have been wilful.
BASC has a useful guide here: https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.php?id=49
Agreed, though I think it is more the case that - regardless of perceived danger - taking a pre-determined shot with a rifle that results in a bullet travelling over your permission boundary would be deemed a wilful act, in that you would know that it would pass through the deer and then enter your neighbour's ground. Falling shotgun pellets are typically uncontrolled and so not wilful, although I am sure we all know of shoots where the guns have been re-pegged to avoid shot falling on a neighbour's ground.
I am not so sure, as the shooter could be construed to have wilfuly taken a shot that he/she knew would then go over the boundary. Either way, like you I think it would be foolish to take the risk and then argue the technicality.
I would suspect that the MoD/Crown has a derogation.
I think this is a red herring. 'Spent shot' could still injure an eye, for example. I think the thing here is one of the fact of where projectiles go after the shooter has lawfully discharged them while on ground where he has permission to be shooting, rather than the amount of damage they have the potential to cause. The fact that projectiles crossing a boundary is not criminal, but rather a potential civil trespass, does not seem to be in doubt. This is presumably why new law was made to make airgun slugs crossing boundaries a criminal offence: a law that wouldn't otherwise have been needed.
First, 'not a criminal offence' and 'OK' are not, in my view opposites. We know it's a criminal offence with an airgun. We seem to know that there's no law that makes it so with firearms ot shotguns, and we've seen a circumstance described where a bullet crossed a boundary, but which summarised as 'no offences committed'.
I think if it were a criminal offence it would be just that, detected or not. In fact, I think it is the civil offence of trespass - and I think for that to be complete some nuisance or damage must be proven by the plaintif.
So where is the hypothetical offence described, I wonder?
Why? Would it be criminal (or irresponsible) to take a perfectly safe shot at a beast on one's own ground just because the backstop is a bank a few yards over the march?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that shooting randomly over and onto other folk's ground is a good idea - but nor is shooting randomly over you own ground. A safe shot is a safe shot; and I think a shot (other than taken with an airgun, or course) taken lawfully on ground where you have authority to shoot is lawful notwithstanding that bullet or shot may end up harmlessly on a neighbour's ground.
simonl
Well-Known Member
That'll be me then! Firstly, let's agree that we''re talking safe shots, as per the OP.
Legally, I'm suggesting they are identical. I can't see what the difference is. Velocity? Mass? Where is this defined in law? I don't think there's any distinction, or at least if there is then it's still only a difference that might arise in civil law.
Similar threads
