Man charged after deer shot in Dagnam Park

[patrol01]

This might have been covered and please forgive me as I don't want to offend any one on the forum if they do Know the situation, But I did a quick look on the forum and did not see any thing , has any one any factual information on this besides the press hype, particularly regarding the circumstances that I would hope were granted to shoot deer. I'm really after an understanding If you are on public land but you have authority to carry out a cull can you be charged for possessing a firearm and suitable ammunition in a public place contrary to section 19 and schedule six of the Firearms Act 1968.

EXCLUSIVE: Police to probe historic child sex 'cover-up' allegations, thanks to YA investigation

ESSEX Police has announced an investigation into alleged child sex abuse in the 1980s and 1990s, following a year-long Yellow

www.yellowad.co.uk

Cheers

 

[palmer_mike]

I have eaten in the chap concerneds restaurant and i happen to know the area where the deer were allegedly shot well (I used to live close to there)

There are a large group of fallow which live in the area and spend quite a bit of time in the park mentioned.

I have no idea if the accused has permission to shoot the surrounding land but doubt very much he had permission to be in the park shooting.

It’s all rumour, but on a FB group I’m on there have been certain allegations of historical wrongdoing by the accused. Allegations seemingly made by a disgruntled former employee of his.......

 

[Swedish]

If you have authority to shoot on that land and you are complying with any relevant conditions and proper safety precautions then I don't see why you should have a problem. Sect 19 mentions a 'reasonable excuse' for being in possession of firearms and ammo whether loaded or not in a public place. Your authority and sensible precautions are your excuse that you are acting lawfully.

 

[finnbear270]

If he's been charged, I would say he's on a sticky wicket, I have shot stuff in public access cemetery's ... with written authority, so if you have such a document it's down to you & your risk assessments.

 

[ashray]

you can see why he might want a deer for his business as he will make about a £1000 out of it through the restaurant but IF he has broken the law that money will soon be gone on legal fees etc. IF he was stupid enough to break the law with a firearm i hope he gets treated the same as any criminal who uses a firearm to commit an illegal act

 

[palmer_mike]

 

[palmer_mike]

Q

 

[.277]

you can see why he might want a deer for his business as he will make about a £1000 out of it through the restaurant but IF he has broken the law that money will soon be gone on legal fees etc. IF he was stupid enough to break the law with a firearm i hope he gets treated the same as any criminal who uses a firearm to commit an illegal act

Bravo life inside then for shooting a deer

 

[Pedro]

Being arrested for something such as this is one thing. But being charged means that the cops will have already interviewed him, taken note of what he might have said with regards to any permission or authority he might believe he has and investigated that and it's been found wanting. Or non-existent. The evidence will then have been put to the Crown Prosecution Service (who are always more than very reluctant to give a nod unless it's pretty tight, evidence-wise) and they have decided he should be charged. Now this doesn't mean that he is guilty or will be found guilty. But I wouldn't bet a farthing on him being acquitted.

It worries me somewhat too that the newspaper report (and, yes, I know how fuzzy with the truth they can be) says that he injured four deer. Smacks of incompetence there too. Anyone can injure a deer, but he seems to make a habit of it, if the report is true. Makes me wonder what he was trying to shoot them with.

 

[Swedish]

Bravo life inside then for shooting a deer

Eh?

 

[potshotpat]

Being arrested for something such as this is one thing. But being charged means that the cops will have already interviewed him, taken note of what he might have said with regards to any permission or authority he might believe he has and investigated that and it's been found wanting. Or non-existent. The evidence will then have been put to the Crown Prosecution Service (who are always more than very reluctant to give a nod unless it's pretty tight, evidence-wise) and they have decided he should be charged. Now this doesn't mean that he is guilty or will be found guilty. But I wouldn't bet a farthing on him being acquitted.

It worries me somewhat too that the newspaper report (and, yes, I know how fuzzy with the truth they can be) says that he injured four deer. Smacks of incompetence there too. Anyone can injure a deer, but he seems to make a habit of it, if the report is true. Makes me wonder what he was trying to shoot them with.

Sorry Pedro I don't read the newspaper cutting that way. I would bet this will all be about Humane Dispatch, and therein lies the problem.

 

[Pedro]

Sorry Pedro I don't read the newspaper cutting that way. I would bet this will all be about Humane Dispatch, and therein lies the problem.

Based on what's there to read, I can't get that, but who knows, you may well be right. As I said, we all know how off the mark the press can be.

 

[CarlW]

Sorry Pedro I don't read the newspaper cutting that way. I would bet this will all be about Humane Dispatch, and therein lies the problem.

Ah. Of course.That is a smart interpretation! I hadn't made that link. I bet you are right.

 

[nun_hunter]

Sorry Pedro I don't read the newspaper cutting that way. I would bet this will all be about Humane Dispatch, and therein lies the problem.

Ah yes I didn't read it that way at first but now that makes some sense. Possibly a poacher injured 4 deer and then he has gone to dispatch them but without the requisite permission?

 

[VSS]

Ah yes I didn't read it that way at first but now that makes some sense. Possibly a poacher injured 4 deer and then he has gone to dispatch them but without the requisite permission?

If he's claiming that it was HD, and that he was acting in the interests of high welfare standards, then permission, as such, wouldn't be required if I remember the rules correctly. He just has to believe that had the owner of the land been aware of the situation then permission would have been granted to allow HD to be carried out. The only offence then would be removal of the carcass, which of course belongs to the landowner.

 

[nun_hunter]

If he's claiming that it was HD, and that he was acting in the interests of high welfare standards, then permission, as such, wouldn't be required if I remember the rules correctly. He just has to believe that had the owner of the land been aware of the situation then permission would have been granted to allow HD to be carried out. The only offence then would be removal of the carcass, which of course belongs to the landowner.

True but that is a defence rather than permission. Usually that would be good enough but if the circumstances were a little sketchy then he'd be charged and would have to offer that as a defence in court to prove his innocence. A bit like using Section 7 to shoot out of season etc.

 

[Milligan]

I am inclined to let due process sort it out. He may well have committed the acts of carrying loaded and discharging, it’s for the court to determine if it was justified in context.
if it was HD and sound then I hope he follows it through and doesn’t take a plea as it would set a precedent.

 

[Dexter]

A quick call to the police to get an incident number would have saved him a whole lot of bother if the rest of his story is true?

 

[Heym SR20]

A quick call to the police to get an incident number would have saved him a whole lot of bother if the rest of his story is true?

A police incident number is no substitute for permission of the land owner to use a firearm on the land. As been said above CPS will only bring charges if they believe there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.

 

[Dexter]

A police incident number is no substitute for permission of the land owner to use a firearm on the land. As been said above CPS will only bring charges if they believe there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.

If he had phoned the police and explained the situation (A wounded deer), then the chances of him being prosecuted are next to nothing. Please don't muddy the waters Heym. It would be reasonable to believe that permission would have been granted etc! This forum is here to help not hinder genuine law abiding members of our community. If we had to actually obtain permission then very few RTAs would ever be attended by ourselves and deer would be left to die in agony. The law is there to help and not too many rural land owners would ever refuse permission.