Spot on Dexter,
For anyone involved in HD, make sure that you don't leave your self open to any liability or prosecution issues
Man charged after deer shot in Dagnam Park
- Thread starter patrol01
- Start date
Spot on Dexter,
For anyone involved in HD, make sure that you don't leave your self open to any liability or prosecution issues
Overlay
Well-Known Member
My thoughts would be to get the all round facts and let the relevant authorities sort it out - period - surmising doesn’t do anybody any good
On my RTA callout sheet, ( it’s the cover my backside sheet in the event of a numptie being on the site on arrival) I record permission to enter the ground or property, police CAD, if there is a police officer his number, and all relevant details to undertake a safe humane dispatch and relevant signatures, if none of these appear, you wait until it does, if you discharge a firearm in a public place or land you have no permission to do so, you can expect a tug - these days you must comply, if you don’t you could pay the price
On my RTA callout sheet, ( it’s the cover my backside sheet in the event of a numptie being on the site on arrival) I record permission to enter the ground or property, police CAD, if there is a police officer his number, and all relevant details to undertake a safe humane dispatch and relevant signatures, if none of these appear, you wait until it does, if you discharge a firearm in a public place or land you have no permission to do so, you can expect a tug - these days you must comply, if you don’t you could pay the price
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Just remember that is a defence, which is not the same as permission or exemption, ie if you do get questioned, charged, taken to court etc then it is for you to Prove that. Which is why it is best to have as many ducks in a row as Phillip says rather than rely on just that as a defence.
Pretty much what I said then. Does anyone know of a single case where someone was prosecuted despite having an incident number? I don't.
Overlay
Well-Known Member
A while ago I had my FEO pop around for a cuppa, I showed him my RAMS and paperwork I used then for RTA callouts , trying to comply
His reply was, yep that’s great. - But if you break the law, you will be arrested the same as joe bloggs who hasn’t bothered to do anything. It’s up to you to be compliant and lawful
I’ve done 2 RTA courses and from memory the last one with BASC running things really went into compliance and how it if not adhered to can have a major impact on you and your ticket - it was a cracking course - an eye opener
I hope this incident pans out ok for this chap, but the law has no emotions and only deals with facts.
SussexSteve
Well-Known Member
My RFD and firearms licence comes before any wounded deer not on my ground I’m afraid
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
I am not muddying the waters. A deer wounded in an RTA does not give you permission to shoot under the law. But the law provides it as a Defence if you are prosecuted.
The reasonable permission, implies that you know the landowner well enough to make that judgement call.
The reasonable permission, implies that you know the landowner well enough to make that judgement call.
100% not true at all. You are breaking the law simply by shooting on land that you don't have permission on, as nun hunter states in post #23. Has anyone been procecuted for doing so though? Your FEO is therefore talking out of his rear end if he said that!
Before you're taken to court the CPSA have to recommend that there is a case to answer and a realistic chance of prosecution. They also need to consider that it's in the public's interest to prosecute an upstanding member of society on a dubious technicality (which FAC holders almost certainly are).
If you have got an incident number and especially if the police are in attendance, would the CPSA consider that it's a case worth pursuing? Imagine the implications. No one would ever attend DRTCs off their own land. This would increase suffering and serve no useful purpose at all and cost the public purse a whole load of money. The police would be left embarrassed and all public support for our law system would be lost.
The FEO should have (and maybe did) say that you could be prosecuted. A whole different thing entirely.
Last edited:
No it doesn't. You don't need to know who the land owner is to make a reasonable judgement call. It would be reasonable to assume that a land owner (who you have never had any negative association with) would give permission in the circumstances based on the fact that you have never known one who wouldn't have done in the same circumstances. Knowing the particular one is irrelevant in order to make a judgement call and especially if you have police present. Land owners are on the whole sensible human being who don't want animals to go through unnecessary suffering, just like everyone else. They would also rather not to woken up to give permission or dragged out of their house to conduct the dispatch themselves.
Overlay
Well-Known Member
he said arrested not prosecuted
i think he was trying to get the point across about discharging a firearm on ground you have no permission
to discharge a firearm without permission whether it’s on the highway or private ground isn’t the right way to proceed, that’s how people get arrested whether they get prosecuted is another story
for the life of me i can’t think why anybody would want to do that
forget the emotional bit about the poor old deer and pressure you get from the police or joe public etc etc if you own a firearm and discharge it in a public or an area you don’t have permission to do
expect to be interrogated
if you wish to do that then that’s fine by me it’s not my ticket at stake
i think he was trying to get the point across about discharging a firearm on ground you have no permission
to discharge a firearm without permission whether it’s on the highway or private ground isn’t the right way to proceed, that’s how people get arrested whether they get prosecuted is another story
for the life of me i can’t think why anybody would want to do that
forget the emotional bit about the poor old deer and pressure you get from the police or joe public etc etc if you own a firearm and discharge it in a public or an area you don’t have permission to do
expect to be interrogated
if you wish to do that then that’s fine by me it’s not my ticket at stake
My point is that you not going to even be arrested if you have an incident number and the police are already in attendance, unless they tell you not not proceed and you do so anyway. However, who in their right mind is going to do that? To say that you will be arrested is a ridiculous statement. An FEO isn't the law!
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
There is a big difference between an RTA, where you are known in the area, probably work as a deer stalker etc, are on the RTA call list etc etc. You will, or should know most of the landowners and thus you can make a reasonable judgement call. One of my permissions adjoins a piece of land where the owner is categoric that no animals will be shot on her land, she is anti all forms of shooting and if anything goes over the boundry we do not have permission to pursue. Knowing this, it would not be reasonable to follow an animal onto her land to put an animal out if it's misery.
In the case raised by the OP, the defendent is claiming that he was putting 4 deer out of their misery that had been injured by poachers.
The succeed the prosecution will need to demonstrate:
1) That he did not have lawful permission to be shooting on the land.
2) And that the deer in question had been killed by him, or an associate - ie a partner in crime
His defence will be along the lines of
1) These deer were injured by poachers and that he can demonstrate they were
2) And he was putting them out of their misery
I can see a number of questions being raised over timelines etc - "how did you know that there were four wounded deer in the middle of the wood at three o'clock in the morning?"
This case has been referred to the Crown Court.
In the case raised by the OP, the defendent is claiming that he was putting 4 deer out of their misery that had been injured by poachers.
The succeed the prosecution will need to demonstrate:
1) That he did not have lawful permission to be shooting on the land.
2) And that the deer in question had been killed by him, or an associate - ie a partner in crime
His defence will be along the lines of
1) These deer were injured by poachers and that he can demonstrate they were
2) And he was putting them out of their misery
I can see a number of questions being raised over timelines etc - "how did you know that there were four wounded deer in the middle of the wood at three o'clock in the morning?"
This case has been referred to the Crown Court.
Last edited:
Overlay
Well-Known Member
The CPS could not give two hoots if there is a chance of conviction, and neither do they have to show how they came to their reasoning to do so. It is often politically motivated depending on the decision maker. Gun and knife crime is a hot topic at the moment, so this looks good on paper. The CPS incur no sanction for losing - the defendant pretty much loses his life either way.
Don't talk such bollock$ aris!
Sorry - can only say it as I’ve seen it. They lose nothing by having a show trial.
EMcC
Well-Known Member
From experience, the Criminal Protection Society will only take a case to court if there is sufficient tangible evidence to give them a 99% chance of winning and in most cases only if there is 100% chance. It keeps their win statistics up.
If a criminal says he didn't do it the CPS will bend over backwards to prove that he didn't do it.
That's why we used to call them the Criminal Protection Service.
If a criminal says he didn't do it the CPS will bend over backwards to prove that he didn't do it.
That's why we used to call them the Criminal Protection Service.
Last edited:
Tell this guy that
Mark of Innocence | Legal Expenses Crowdfunding with GoGetFunding
gogetfunding.com
Similar threads
