Well said BASC ...... however I am still suspicious that the father may have permission but not the children ....... I wonder what the authorities may make of that?
Possible serious implications
- Thread starter Jager SA
- Start date
Well said BASC ...... however I am still suspicious that the father may have permission but not the children ....... I wonder what the authorities may make of that?
Si
Well-Known Member
The offence that's been committed is allowing a (presumably under age) non-certificate holder access to a (loaded) shotgun... might as well have given his cabinet keys to the boys, it would amount to the same thing. Regardless of whether they had permission from the landowner.
I think that's a little harsh, Si. I imagine that a good proportion of us who use shotguns regularly on here learnt by accompanying an adult and having a go under supervision as youngsters and that's a valid method of gaining experience. So long as the law is adhered to, of course.
There's nothing to say the youth wasn't under proper close supervision and that his dropping the gun was anything other than an accident, although inexperience may or may not have played a role.
There's nothing to say the youth wasn't under proper close supervision and that his dropping the gun was anything other than an accident, although inexperience may or may not have played a role.
I have long argued that someone who has been given "permission" to shoot vermin on someone elses land is not an occupier and therefore is not able to lend a shotgun to someone to use on that land.
An occupier is someone who has an interest in the land that is enforceable in law. When I give permission to someone to shoot pigeons on my farm I do not confer any legal interest in the land, they have no control over the land or right to pass on the shooting to a third party and they most certainly are not an occupier.
Remember that an occupier is legally responsible for anything that may happen on the land and as such would, for example, be liable for injuries to members of the public occurring on the said land and therefore should have the appropriate insurance in place.
ACPO has discussed the term occupier here..............
17. SECTION 11(5) EXEMPTION
17.1 Helen Rees asked for some concensus on the definition of “Occupier” for the purposes
of S11(5) of the Firearms Act. BASC, NGO and Gamekeepers Association interpret it to
mean the individual has a right to shoot which means they effecitvely have permission
from the landowner. Helen’s view on 11(5) is that a person can benefit from non
exemption if they have a shooting right (a binding contract with the landowner).
17.2 Graham Wididcome to address this in the Guidance in the near future. Ministers are
looking as changing the terminology of “occupier”.
17.3 Barry Collacott concluded by reading a quote with regards to the definition of “occupier”
from the BASC website “Issues arising from S11(5). No definition of occupier in the
Firearms Act but generally means someone with an interest in the land that is
enforceable at law”.
17.4 All agreed this was a good definition.
An occupier is someone who has an interest in the land that is enforceable in law. When I give permission to someone to shoot pigeons on my farm I do not confer any legal interest in the land, they have no control over the land or right to pass on the shooting to a third party and they most certainly are not an occupier.
Remember that an occupier is legally responsible for anything that may happen on the land and as such would, for example, be liable for injuries to members of the public occurring on the said land and therefore should have the appropriate insurance in place.
ACPO has discussed the term occupier here..............
17. SECTION 11(5) EXEMPTION
17.1 Helen Rees asked for some concensus on the definition of “Occupier” for the purposes
of S11(5) of the Firearms Act. BASC, NGO and Gamekeepers Association interpret it to
mean the individual has a right to shoot which means they effecitvely have permission
from the landowner. Helen’s view on 11(5) is that a person can benefit from non
exemption if they have a shooting right (a binding contract with the landowner).
17.2 Graham Wididcome to address this in the Guidance in the near future. Ministers are
looking as changing the terminology of “occupier”.
17.3 Barry Collacott concluded by reading a quote with regards to the definition of “occupier”
from the BASC website “Issues arising from S11(5). No definition of occupier in the
Firearms Act but generally means someone with an interest in the land that is
enforceable at law”.
17.4 All agreed this was a good definition.
I suspect that the Police are simply crossing the T's and dotting the I's in preparation for the inevitable HSE investigation and civil compensation claim. They will want to be sure that any firearms or criminal aspects have been covered. No idea where the law stands on injuries caused to children by negligence or lack of adequate supervision?
Not sure where people get the idea that the Police are in a rush to revoke certificates? I know of at least three individuals who have been arrested and investigated by the Police for various crimes (which, by the way, they were totally guilty of!) and all of them got their firearms returned after initial seizures and did not get their FAC's revoked.
Not sure where people get the idea that the Police are in a rush to revoke certificates? I know of at least three individuals who have been arrested and investigated by the Police for various crimes (which, by the way, they were totally guilty of!) and all of them got their firearms returned after initial seizures and did not get their FAC's revoked.
Si
Well-Known Member
Harsh it may be but that's what they will most likely go after him for.
Would you leave a loaded gun in a room with a minor?... or leave your cabinet wide open so as a non-SGC holder could have access? What's the difference between a room in your house or a farmers field?
I suppose the key to the outcome of this is the definition of supervision and whether it can be proved that the boy was being properly supervised. I did once hear that supervision can be from the other side of a field
Last edited:
howa243
Well-Known Member
I suppose the key to the outcome of this is the definition of supervision and whether it can be proved that the boy was being properly supervised. I did once hear that supervision can be from the other side of a field
My understanding 'was' that supervision does not have to mean in the immediate proximity of.
Any negligence claim would be made under civil law and will have nothing at all to do with the police.
I cant see the HSE being remotely interested in this recreational activity.
Occupier is clearly defined in law, and all occupiers have a duty of care to all others on that land.
To what extent the person in this case was an occupier and to what extent his rights extend to allowing or preventing others shooting on that land will be determined by the agreement he has with the land owner / owner of the shooting rights (not always the same person!)
Key point from all of this are:
Is the person involved a member of a shooting organisation - if so he should be in touch with them ASAP to alert them to this as there is a potential for a claim, and to discuss with them the details of his shooting agreement.
Secondly, for all shooters to have a formal agreement with their landlord which clearly states what their rights are eg access, quarry to be shot, allowing others to be their guest etc.
David
I cant see the HSE being remotely interested in this recreational activity.
Occupier is clearly defined in law, and all occupiers have a duty of care to all others on that land.
To what extent the person in this case was an occupier and to what extent his rights extend to allowing or preventing others shooting on that land will be determined by the agreement he has with the land owner / owner of the shooting rights (not always the same person!)
Key point from all of this are:
Is the person involved a member of a shooting organisation - if so he should be in touch with them ASAP to alert them to this as there is a potential for a claim, and to discuss with them the details of his shooting agreement.
Secondly, for all shooters to have a formal agreement with their landlord which clearly states what their rights are eg access, quarry to be shot, allowing others to be their guest etc.
David
8x57
Distinguished Member
I wouldn't be absolutely certain about the HSE not being totally interested David.
I've had some dealings with the HSE in the past and agree that in a lot of instances their duties are delegated to the local authority and that they just concentrate on the heavier industries and where serious injury or a fatality has occurred. However I think that they still have the power to investigate and enforce the Health & Safety at Work Act which can include other activities that most of us wouldn't regard as having anything to do with work.
I'm not sure but I seem to recall the police actually pursuing a prosecution under the H&S at W Act on occasions in the past, but there again it might just have been reported incorrectly in the news or I have misunderstood it.
I couldn't agree with you more though that this guy needs to speak to his shooting organisation immediately. In fact I think he should have done this long ago and certainly before he attended an interview and answered any questions.
As regards a formal written agreement with the landowner, do you consider the BASC consent form that you can download from your website adequate for this?
I've had some dealings with the HSE in the past and agree that in a lot of instances their duties are delegated to the local authority and that they just concentrate on the heavier industries and where serious injury or a fatality has occurred. However I think that they still have the power to investigate and enforce the Health & Safety at Work Act which can include other activities that most of us wouldn't regard as having anything to do with work.
I'm not sure but I seem to recall the police actually pursuing a prosecution under the H&S at W Act on occasions in the past, but there again it might just have been reported incorrectly in the news or I have misunderstood it.
I couldn't agree with you more though that this guy needs to speak to his shooting organisation immediately. In fact I think he should have done this long ago and certainly before he attended an interview and answered any questions.
As regards a formal written agreement with the landowner, do you consider the BASC consent form that you can download from your website adequate for this?
From almost 20 years experience of looking after shooting related claims, I cant remember the HSE ever being involved in a case, except where a trainee gamekeeper was injured on a rabbit shoot.
The shooting rights permit on the BASC web site has been checked several times, and is a perfectly good starting point, but of course I would urge people to double check with their landlord that it covers all points both parties need, and amend accordingly.
David
The shooting rights permit on the BASC web site has been checked several times, and is a perfectly good starting point, but of course I would urge people to double check with their landlord that it covers all points both parties need, and amend accordingly.
David
8x57
Distinguished Member
Thanks David.
triggersqueezer
Well-Known Member
rozzers don't want to know accidents
Last edited:
I think you may have wrongly assumed this was an accident at work!
I do not believe it was and as such the HSE will have no interest!
Certainly H&S at Work has no bearing on this incident.
And yes, I deal with them and their implications on a daily basis.
I do not believe it was and as such the HSE will have no interest!
Certainly H&S at Work has no bearing on this incident.
And yes, I deal with them and their implications on a daily basis.
Last edited:
49ERIC
Well-Known Member
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
IF THEY DID THAT, we would all
have a BIG Problem
Based only on the limited facts that we have, I think that a good ambulance chasing lawyer could have a field day with this one. You can't shoot pigeons for sport because its in breach of the general licence so the activity must have been crop protection (work). Should children be taking part in work activities? Will it go down in the farm/estate accident book? If the adult involved was supervising the children then what qualifications did he have to do this? Was a risk assessment in place? Was a first aid kit available?
What training did the child have before going out in the field?
Don't get me wrong, I think lads should go pigeon shooting and at least he was with an adult. I was cycling out to the fields with a 12 bore bungeed to the crossbar when I was 15! I'm just highlighting how it could go.
Main thing is there were no fatalities. Lets just wish all the people involved well and hope it works out ok.
What training did the child have before going out in the field?
Don't get me wrong, I think lads should go pigeon shooting and at least he was with an adult. I was cycling out to the fields with a 12 bore bungeed to the crossbar when I was 15! I'm just highlighting how it could go.
Main thing is there were no fatalities. Lets just wish all the people involved well and hope it works out ok.
Your kidding right?
Its not work! Its not employment!
one mans "sport" is anothers pest control.
Its not work! Its not employment!
one mans "sport" is anothers pest control.
For those people that are doubting a possible involvement by the HSE, you might lkke to download and read ais43 (a small pdf) which is available from the HSE website (or just google).
Ths use of firearms is controlled under the HSW act 1974 and their use does not have to be solely for employment or financial gain.
Ths use of firearms is controlled under the HSW act 1974 and their use does not have to be solely for employment or financial gain.
Indeed, if it is a work based accident in industry or agriculture then the HSE may investigate, if its a recreational activity they will not.
If its an accident on a commercial shoot then the HSE would not take it up but the Environmental Health team would but in my experience only when the accident is reportable under RIDDOR - the same bits of law apply of course.
As I said in almost 20 years I can only remember a couple of cases where the HSE / EHO got involved.
Having said that regardless of whether its a commercial or recreational activity, the person with the gun in their hands has a duty of care in law to do all they reasonably can to protect the heath and safety of those around them.
Shooters are remarkably safe, think of the number of people who go shooting each year, and the millions of shots fired, we see a tiny number of accidents, but almost all are caused by a momentary lapse.
Looking specifically at this case, three people in a hide is high risk, and no guns should ever be left loaded unless its in the hands of the person shooting, that is the key in this case.
As I said, the chance of a claim is still there so the chap who was in charge of the party should be alerting his insurers as soon as possible.
David
If its an accident on a commercial shoot then the HSE would not take it up but the Environmental Health team would but in my experience only when the accident is reportable under RIDDOR - the same bits of law apply of course.
As I said in almost 20 years I can only remember a couple of cases where the HSE / EHO got involved.
Having said that regardless of whether its a commercial or recreational activity, the person with the gun in their hands has a duty of care in law to do all they reasonably can to protect the heath and safety of those around them.
Shooters are remarkably safe, think of the number of people who go shooting each year, and the millions of shots fired, we see a tiny number of accidents, but almost all are caused by a momentary lapse.
Looking specifically at this case, three people in a hide is high risk, and no guns should ever be left loaded unless its in the hands of the person shooting, that is the key in this case.
As I said, the chance of a claim is still there so the chap who was in charge of the party should be alerting his insurers as soon as possible.
David
8x57
Distinguished Member
"Indeed, if it is a work based accident in industry or agriculture then the HSE may investigate, if its a recreational activity they will not."
The executive may not investigate David but one of the other enforcing authorities may decide to do so, because the Health & Safety Executive are not the only enforcing authority or the only authority to investigate and prosecute under the Health and Safety at Work Act banner.
H&S law is a complete minefield that I don't claim to fully understand despite working in that field for a number of years, including taking forward prosecutions that were charged under the HSAW act in some cases (via our retained Barrister thankfully) and I didn't work for the executive but for another enforcing authority.
The way it was explained to me once was that in the HSAW Act the "at work" refers to how H&S and the Act works, and not just H&S in the workplace.
The executive may not investigate David but one of the other enforcing authorities may decide to do so, because the Health & Safety Executive are not the only enforcing authority or the only authority to investigate and prosecute under the Health and Safety at Work Act banner.
H&S law is a complete minefield that I don't claim to fully understand despite working in that field for a number of years, including taking forward prosecutions that were charged under the HSAW act in some cases (via our retained Barrister thankfully) and I didn't work for the executive but for another enforcing authority.
The way it was explained to me once was that in the HSAW Act the "at work" refers to how H&S and the Act works, and not just H&S in the workplace.
