Possible serious implications

[howa243]

Yep everything in place all good...absolutely nothing was my thought...totally wrong!!!

I try not to be overly critical on these occasions but if the boy 'picked' the gun up it should not have been loaded. If I was in a hide with two boys I would have loaded the gun for them once in their hands. This is assuming they were not that experienced.

 

[scubadog]

I fail to see what "offence" has technically been committed.
The is covered in some detail in the home office guidelines.
Home office guidelines.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...6_Nov_2013.pdf
section 6.18, page 40

You were perfectly within your right providing you had permission from the land owner or owner of the sporting rights.

The flo is wrong!! AGAIN!!

It sounds like while technically an offence may have been committed it may not be in the public interest to pursue the matter via the courts. It will depend very much on how the firearms department and possibly the DPP see it.
At the very least I can see the SGC holder having an interview without coffee. Fortunately the injury was relatively minor but a warning to us all about loaning/ borrowing shotguns by non certificate holders and if legal to do so or not. I hope that the SGC holder is properly represented and a member of a shooting organisation so that he can obtain good advise.

 

[8x57]

I think you need to look carefully at the questions that were asked Scubadog.

1/ Do you have the sporting rights what's the land the issue over?

2/ Are you a member of the syndicate the shoots over the land?

3/ Are you the landowners agent?

4/ Are you employed by the landowner?

I think it all hinges on the answers given and in particular occupier which we all know is still a bit of a grey area.


"You were perfectly within your right providing you had permission from the land owner or owner of the sporting rights." I don't think that this is the case merely having permission is not sufficient.

 

[scubadog]

Those questions are wrong and pointless!
The Flo is wrong and clearly missed the very points covered in the home office guidelines above!

He may as well have asked "did you have fish fingers for dinner", it has just about the same relevance.
I get what he was getting at but just point him towards section 6.18 and 6.19 of the very guidelines he and ourselves are governed by.

 

[8x57]

Yes but the devil is in the detail and far from being pointless the SGC holder should have been aware of where this was going when they started to ask these questions. Once again proving the need for sound legal advice before answering any questions.

Incidentally has the age of the son and friend been mentioned yet.

 

[scubadog]

6.18 Section 11(5) of the 1968 Act allows an individual, without holding a shotgun certificate, to borrow a shotgun from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the occupier’s presence. Section 11(5) was amended by SI 2010/1759, to add that where the borrower is under eighteen, the exemption only applies if the occupier is eighteen or over. The presence of the occupier is normally taken to mean within sight and earshot of the individual borrowing the shotgun. 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 Act 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.


6.19 In the absence of any firm definition for firearms purposes, it is suggested that this definition of "occupier" should be used. On some occasions though, where the status of a certificate holder acting as an occupier is an issue, the chief officer may need to consider seeking the advice of counsel. Section 57(4) provides that "premises" shall include any land. The borrower may be of any age but an offence may be committed under section 22(3) if a minor under the age of 15 is not supervised by a person over 21 years of age.




So as you can see the officers questions do not cover section 6.18, hence why he is wrong!
The OP had permission hence he was the occupier!
The flo didn't ask this!

 

[Johno100]

My two penneth worth , when Im supervising minors (8-11yrs) I don't allow a gun to be loaded unless I`m standing behind them , this way its easy to grab the gun if its swung in the wrong direction.

 

[8x57]

"The OP had permission hence he was the occupier!"

I think not. He may have permission but if this is regarded as being the occupier is very much up for debate and ultimately can only be decided by the courts. Sound legal opinion is called for.

 

[Jager SA]

I'm glad this has got people thinking and the differing views are good. However I shall try to find out more if there is any more. But as far as I can see the plod are looking for a scalp...this was an accident pure and simple but because of certain "grey areas" they I'm sure will endeavour to Pursue this because they can and because the end result will be one less FAC in the mix.

I think the questions were wrong, I also believe those questions are Firearms related rather than Shotgun related.

I have also been told this morning, how true this I don't know but there is a drive to investigate Cert holders going back 5 years for any kind of law breaking which may have occurred, from Speeding fines, rowing with your neighbours or even dropping litter! Makes you think!!!

 

[scubadog]

You can debate all you like:
It is discussed in section 6.19!
This definition is guidance for police by the homeofiice themselves!



6.19 In the absence of any firm definition for firearms purposes, it is suggested that this definition of "occupier" should be used. On some occasions though, where the status of a certificate holder acting as an occupier is an issue, the chief officer may need to consider seeking the advice of counsel. Section 57(4) provides that "premises" shall include any land. The borrower may be of any age but an offence may be committed under section 22(3) if a minor under the age of 15 is not supervised by a person over 21 years of age.

"The OP had permission hence he was the occupier!"

I think not. He may have permission but if this is regarded as being the occupier is very much up for debate and ultimately can only be decided by the courts. Sound legal opinion is called for.

 

[jimbo1984]

I'm glad this has got people thinking and the differing views are good. However I shall try to find out more if there is any more. But as far as I can see the plod are looking for a scalp...this was an accident pure and simple but because of certain "grey areas" they I'm sure will endeavour to Pursue this because they can and because the end result will be one less FAC in the mix.

I think the questions were wrong, I also believe those questions are Firearms related rather than Shotgun related.

I have also been told this morning, how true this I don't know but there is a drive to investigate Cert holders going back 5 years for any kind of law breaking which may have occurred, from Speeding fines, rowing with your neighbours or even dropping litter! Makes you think!!!

hi James hope your well
this last paragraph concerns me ... Not that I doubt it for a moment as we all know the plod love to revoke certs ! ( makes you wonder why they issue themin the first place??) but once they've issued the cert I can't see how They could take it off your for an infraction they already knew of that happened years ago ?

 

[Monkey Spanker]

I have also been told this morning, how true this I don't know but there is a drive to investigate Cert holders going back 5 years for any kind of law breaking which may have occurred, from Speeding fines, rowing with your neighbours or even dropping litter! Makes you think!!!

Let's hope they don't check for violent outbursts and rowing on internet forums then, or there'll be a lot of rifles for sale in the classifieds!
MS

 

[jimbo1984]

Let's hope they don't check for violent outbursts and rowing on internet forums then, or there'll be a lot of rifles for sale in the classifieds!
MS

lol I don't know what you mean .....

 

[Jager SA]

hi James hope your well
this last paragraph concerns me ... Not that I doubt it for a moment as we all know the plod love to revoke certs ! ( makes you wonder why they issue themin the first place??) but once they've issued the cert I can't see how They could take it off your for an infraction they already knew of that happened years ago ?

This whole thing concerns me, there's too much in the way of "grey area" keep to the facts.

Yes I agree with you but they can revoke a ticket whenever they see fit... If, you are deemed (In their eyes) to be a risk to "public safety" Now who decides this on what grounds is a concern, especially when and if it's true they are delving through past breeches of Road traffic acts or Public order offences.

 

[Jager SA]

Let's hope they don't check for violent outbursts and rowing on internet forums then, or there'll be a lot of rifles for sale in the classifieds!
MS

Thats true...any idea where I can find a Sako 280 AI?

 

[8x57]

I'm just wondering if the firearms department or DPP will see this as an opportunity to use a case like this to take a test case to court so as to finally resolve the issue of who is to be regarded as the occupier. After all even ACPO and the H.O.couldn't come to a firm conclusion on this matter when they were drafting the 2013 guidance and discussing it at the last ACPO firearms meeting for which the public have access to the minutes.

 

[Jager SA]

I'm just wondering if the firearms department or DPP will see this as an opportunity to use a case like this to take a test case to court so as to finally resolve the issue of who is to be regarded as the occupier. After all even ACPO and the H.O.couldn't come to a firm conclusion on this matter when they were drafting the 2013 guidance and discussing it at the last ACPO firearms meeting for which the public have access to the minutes.

Yes you could be right but that in itself is cause for concern. As has previously been seen they don't need much to revoke a ticket.

 

[8x57]

I think the problem may be that there have been several accidents or incidents involving firearms where persons in particular youths have been injured recently. Perhaps the police are eager to step in and be seen to be doing something about it, being proactive rather than reactive.

 

[Jager SA]

I think the problem may be that there have been several accidents or incidents involving firearms where persons in particular youths have been injured recently. Perhaps the police are eager to step in and be seen to be doing something about it, being proactive rather than reactive.

Yes true, I wonder if the same incidents involving police firearms have the same "proactive" approach!

 

[David63]

The term “occupier” is not defined inthe Firearms Acts, nor has a court clarified its meaning. However, the Firearms Consultative Committee intheir 5th Annual report recommended that the provisions of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act1981 be adopted. This states that “occupier” in relation to any land, other than the foreshore, includes anyperson having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game or fish.

So if your friend has the shooting rights, even if those rights are restricted to only pigeons and pests, then he would be seen as the occupier for that purpose , and as the occupier can lend his shotgun to a non certificate holder.

If he does not have the rights of an occupier then if he lends his shotgun to someone he is in breach of his certificate conditions and could be revoked.

I suggest your friend gets in touch with his shooting organisation for help in the first place, but if he has written permission from the landowner he should present this to the police and ask for his guns back.

David