Un-licensed users of shotguns - spot police checks

[Blaser243]

Mid-Cornwall shooting ground have just reported on social media that D&C officers were present this weekend and checking whether all shooting had a shotgun certificate. For reasons unknown (to me at least, being a mere interested bystander) their s.11(6) authorisation (which is required to permit the use of shotguns by those without a shotgun certificate) has lapsed and not been renewed (yet).

Is this just a local issue (i.e. a problem regarding this shooting ground, and how perhaps they have overseen the use of their s.11(6) in the past)? Or, is it a further indication of D&C being zealous in enforcing the letter of the law?

Either way, I for one will be taking more care to ensure that I know (rather than believe) that a shooting ground has a s.11(6) authority if I take any non-certificate holders with me in future.

It is also worth noting the current terms of s.11A - the equivalent provision for using shotguns and rifles on private land. Written permission has been required since 2017, not just verbal permission. Aside from routine occassions, this is particularly worth bearing in mind at this time of year as lots of beaters' days are coming up and its not unusual for someone to be allowed to shoot (under supervision of course). They require a written authorisation, not just an ok from the keeper. Please bear this in mind to keep your certificates save. The risk of being caught is low, but that isn't the approach we as responsible people should adopt.

As for what constitutes written permission - this has not been tested before the courts as far as I am aware. However, in most legal matters email is considered to be "writing" for legal purposes (e.g. a contract can be concluded by email or electronic means alone). I would suggest that informing the occupier of the land (i.e. owner, tenant) that you are bringing a non-certificate holder and getting them to confirm in email or text message should be sufficient, however, we don't know how the police will view this for certain.

Finally, is a gamekeeper, farm manager or factor an "occupier" for the purposes of the Firearms Act? Probably, is my view. They generally control who may take game/vermin etc from the land and in many instances, where the actual owner of the land is a body corporate, may well be the only actual person with such control. Again, this is at present untested, at least in the higher courts.

 

[timbrayford]

Mid-Cornwall shooting ground have just reported on social media that D&C officers were present this weekend and checking whether all shooting had a shotgun certificate. For reasons unknown (to me at least, being a mere interested bystander) their s.11(6) authorisation (which is required to permit the use of shotguns by those without a shotgun certificate) has lapsed and not been renewed (yet).

Is this just a local issue (i.e. a problem regarding this shooting ground, and how perhaps they have overseen the use of their s.11(6) in the past)? Or, is it a further indication of D&C being zealous in enforcing the letter of the law?

Either way, I for one will be taking more care to ensure that I know (rather than believe) that a shooting ground has a s.11(6) authority if I take any non-certificate holders with me in future.

It is also worth noting the current terms of s.11A - the equivalent provision for using shotguns and rifles on private land. Written permission has been required since 2017, not just verbal permission. Aside from routine occassions, this is particularly worth bearing in mind at this time of year as lots of beaters' days are coming up and its not unusual for someone to be allowed to shoot (under supervision of course). They require a written authorisation, not just an ok from the keeper. Please bear this in mind to keep your certificates save. The risk of being caught is low, but that isn't the approach we as responsible people should adopt.

As for what constitutes written permission - this has not been tested before the courts as far as I am aware. However, in most legal matters email is considered to be "writing" for legal purposes (e.g. a contract can be concluded by email or electronic means alone). I would suggest that informing the occupier of the land (i.e. owner, tenant) that you are bringing a non-certificate holder and getting them to confirm in email or text message should be sufficient, however, we don't know how the police will view this for certain.

Finally, is a gamekeeper, farm manager or factor an "occupier" for the purposes of the Firearms Act? Probably, is my view. They generally control who may take game/vermin etc from the land and in many instances, where the actual owner of the land is a body corporate, may well be the only actual person with such control. Again, this is at present untested, at least in the higher courts.

Just as matter of clarification, I don't know the answer myself, but is this written permission a requirement of the firearms act or is it just something that the local police have made up for themselves. Perhaps BASC would care to voice an opinion on this?

 

[Kalahari]

In this case, as I understand the legal niceties, if I lend a shotgun to a person, providing it isn't actually against the grounds rules, and the borrower isn't a forbidden person they would be OK.

@Conor O'Gorman ?

David.

 

[Blaser243]

Perhaps it would have been helpful if I included the actual text of the law. Please see below (bear in mind, this is accurate today, but could change in future).

I am not suggesting that D&C are incorrect in their interpretation of the law - merely highlighting that a s.11(6) authority (clay shoots) or written permission under s.11A (private land/estate rifle provision) is commonly misunderstood.

11A​

(1)A person (“the borrower”) may, without holding a certificate under this Act, borrow a rifle or shot gun from another person on private premises (“the lender”) and have the rifle or shot gun in his or her possession on those premises if—

(a)the four conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) are met, and

(b)in the case of a rifle, the borrower is aged 17 or over.

(2)The first condition is that the borrowing and possession of the rifle or shot gun are for either or both of the following purposes—

(a)hunting animals or shooting game or vermin;

(b)shooting at artificial targets.

(3)The second condition is that the lender—

(a)is aged 18 or over,

(b)holds a certificate under this Act in respect of the rifle or shot gun, and

(c)is either—

(i)a person who has a right to allow others to enter the premises for the purposes of hunting animals or shooting game or vermin, or

(ii)a person who is authorised in writing by a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) to lend the rifle or shot gun on the premises (whether generally or to persons specified in the authorisation who include the borrower).

(4)The third condition is that the borrower's possession and use of the rifle or shot gun complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the lender's certificate under this Act.

(5)The fourth condition is that, during the period for which the rifle or shot gun is borrowed, the borrower is in the presence of the lender or—

(a)where a rifle is borrowed, a person who, although not the lender, is aged 18 or over, holds a certificate under this Act in respect of that rifle and is a person described in subsection (3)(c)(i) or (ii);

(b)where a shot gun is borrowed, a person who, although not the lender, is aged 18 or over, holds a certificate under this Act in respect of that shot gun or another shot gun and is a person described in subsection (3)(c)(i) or (ii).

(6)Where a rifle is borrowed on any premises in reliance on subsection (1), the borrower may, without holding a firearm certificate, purchase or acquire ammunition on the premises, and have the ammunition in his or her possession on those premises for the period for which the firearm is borrowed, if—

(a)the ammunition is for use with the firearm,

(b)the lender's firearm certificate authorises the lender to have in his or her possession during that period ammunition of a quantity not less than that purchased or acquired by, and in the possession of, the borrower, and

(c)the borrower's possession and use of the ammunition complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the certificate.

.......

11(6) A person may, without holding a shot gun certificate, use a shot gun at a time and place approved for shooting at artificial targets by the chief officer of police for the area in which that place is situated.

 

[Blaser243]

Just as matter of clarification, I don't know the answer myself, but is this written permission a requirement of the firearms act or is it just something that the local police have made up for themselves. Perhaps BASC would care to voice an opinion on this?

It's contained in the law (which was updated in 2017), it's not just their interpretation or policy. See the provision repeated above. Despite the law changing nearly 8 years ago, most people don't seem to have noticed.

In this case, as I understand the legal niceties, if I lend a shotgun to a person, providing it isn't actually against the grounds rules, and the borrower isn't a forbidden person they would be OK.

@Conor O'Gorman ?

David.

If the ground hasn't got a s.11(6) authority then you would be committing an offence - that is what D&C's finest were checking for. I expect we will start to hear soon if they have decided to take action against anyone who allowed a non-certificate holder to use their shotguns at that shoot. I hope not, but nothing would surprise me in the current climate. Hopefully they just issue some words of advice, if anyone did transgress this provision of the law.

I would suggest that a normal clay shoot can't be covered by s.11A because the public can access it without restriction (even if they have to pay). Therefore, it is a public place. However, a members-only target (clay or otherwise) shoot could potentially be covered by s.11A, meaning you could bring a non-certificate holder to use your shotgun/rifle if you had written authorisation from the "occupier" (i.e. landowner, club secretary etc).

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

In this case, as I understand the legal niceties, if I lend a shotgun to a person, providing it isn't actually against the grounds rules, and the borrower isn't a forbidden person they would be OK.

@Conor O'Gorman ?

David.

I am not minded to get into legal advice around firearms on the forum but would point to BASC website:

Firearms use

Guidance on issues such as additional conditions on firearms certificates, the law around borrowing guns and access to shooting land.

basc.org.uk

 

[eggy74]

Our local clay ground specifies that you can only bring non certificate holders as guests if you are a member, so i guess that is their way of giving permission to us members to cover that condition, or does that only apply to game and vermin, as artificial targets are not mentioned there ???

 

[Blaser243]

S.11A(2)(b) mentions artificial targets, but again - you would have to have explicit written permission if they didn’t have a s.11(6) authority. In any case, if other non-members were allowed to turn up and shoot (ie not as member’s guests) then it would appear to be a public place, and thus relying on s.11A is unlikely to be a go-er.

All just my opinion and musings - as always, take your own professional legal advice that takes into account your own situation.

 

[Liveonce]

As i see the difference, if a clay ground does not have a s.11(6) and a section 2 shotgun owner was to bring a guest who had no certificate then the gun must be use it in the presence of either the occupier of private premises or persons authorised by them in writing.

But then the question, is a clay ground private premises, probably yes if access is only with permission of the owner.

Where as if the clay ground has a s.11(6) the certificate holder can lend the non certificate holder the gun without being in the presence of either the occupier of private premises or persons authorised by them in writing.

 

[Blaser243]

I would suggest that a clay ground is a public place if members of the public can simply turn up (or book to attend) unless there is something akin to a membership approval system that limits attendance to an exclusive group of people. Clubs that offer "memberships" (i.e. discounts or scorekeeping in return for a small fee) but continue to allow allcomers to attend, are unlikely to be considered private members clubs and therefore, private premises.

If it is a public place, s.11A cannot apply and so its either a s.11(6) authority or no uncertificated guests.

 

[Liveonce]

I would suggest that a clay ground is a public place if members of the public can simply turn up (or book to attend) unless there is something akin to a membership approval system that limits attendance to an exclusive group of people. Clubs that offer "memberships" (i.e. discounts or scorekeeping in return for a small fee) but continue to allow allcomers to attend, are unlikely to be considered private members clubs and therefore, private premises.

If it is a public place, s.11A cannot apply and so its either a s.11(6) authority or no uncertificated guests.

however are they not just simply turning up on the assumption the owner will grant permission allowing them access they could just as easy refuse them access if they wanted to do so.

Surly you can simply turn up at anyone’s house but that does not make it public property giving you right to enter you can only enter with the owners or occupiers permission.

one for the legal experts.

 

[Blaser243]

There are quite a few decisions which point to a public place being somewhere that the public can be expected to access, even if they have to pay a fee to enter. Yes, you could be turned away by the owner, but that doesn't stop it being a public place.

Take a public house, for instance. It may well be privately owned, and the owner/barman could refuse service and kick you out, but that doesn't negate the fact that its somewhere the public could be reasonably expected to be. Same would apply to a common clay shoot.

A private home is normally completely different. Nobody would expect a member of the public to be able to gain access freely, so it can't be a public place. However, what if the private dwelling is a stately home and you offer admission to the public for a small fee on a number of occasions in the summer? Then, it becomes a public place for those occasions - but not the rest of the year.

It comes down to how the property is used and by whom. Not what the property is.

 

[charlie222]

I think the big question for d&c here is about tax payers money and the resources they pay for. Is it really a top priority to poke about clay shooting clubs trying to catch people out? Why not just send a letter to the clubs saying your s2 or whatever it is has expired, if we find anyone using a shotgun without a certificate we'll effectively shut you down? I don't usually critise the police but I'm afraid in this case, my opinion is they've got it wrong.

 

[Liveonce]

There are quite a few decisions which point to a public place being somewhere that the public can be expected to access, even if they have to pay a fee to enter. Yes, you could be turned away by the owner, but that doesn't stop it being a public place.

Take a public house, for instance. It may well be privately owned, and the owner/barman could refuse service and kick you out, but that doesn't negate the fact that its somewhere the public could be reasonably expected to be. Same would apply to a common clay shoot.

A private home is normally completely different. Nobody would expect a member of the public to be able to gain access freely, so it can't be a public place. However, what if the private dwelling is a stately home and you offer admission to the public for a small fee on a number of occasions in the summer? Then, it becomes a public place for those occasions - but not the rest of the year.

It comes down to how the property is used and by whom. Not what the property is.

I think we will agree to disagree, if I owned the land that occupied a clay shoot then the land is still privately owned and suddenly does not become somewhere the public can freely access without my permission or that of the occupier.
Common clay shoot has no legal meaning.

Land is property by legal definition and no special definition for a private home, you only gain access to any private property if the owner or occupier grants that access.

Public property is property that is dedicated to public use or in public ownership. Occasionally opening a stately home in private ownership would not make it public property or change it from a private premises,

The safest way is for the ground to have a s.11(6) or only allow certificate holders to shoot.

Wonder if the ground could give every non certificate holder accompanied by a certificate holder a simple printed card giving written permission to shoot clays.

Has it ever gone to court to be tested in law, may be soon in Mid Cornwall

 

[Tallguy]

I think the question here is, why did the ground allow their S.11 to lapse?

 

[cjm1066]

Why was the 11(6) not renewed?

This seems heavy handed for a administrative error, might there be background issues that we don't know about?

 

[castbullets.co.uk]

I think we will agree to disagree, if I owned the land that occupied a clay shoot then the land is still privately owned and suddenly does not become somewhere the public can freely access without my permission or that of the occupier.
Common clay shoot has no legal meaning.

Land is property by legal definition and no special definition for a private home, you only gain access to any private property if the owner or occupier grants that access.

Public property is property that is dedicated to public use or in public ownership. Occasionally opening a stately home in private ownership would not make it public property or change it from a private premises,

Unfortunately, you're not correct. The Criminal Justice Act 1972 updated the definition of a public place to be:

“Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”.

The pertinent bit there is have or are permitted to have access which does include any private land to which any member of the public has been permitted to have access at the relevant time. So in the stately home example, Blaser243 is quite correct to state that the home becomes "a public place" for the duration that the public are permitted to have access, at least as far as the CJA is concerned. It reverts to being a private place once the permission for the public to enter has been withdrawn.



As for the rest of the story and the actions of the Police - this to me is either connected to some other activity that has caught their attention or is the result of someone very overzealous looking to make a name for themselves somehow. I strongly suspect it is the former rather than the latter...

 

[eggy74]

S.11A(2)(b) mentions artificial targets, but again - you would have to have explicit written permission if they didn’t have a s.11(6) authority. In any case, if other non-members were allowed to turn up and shoot (ie not as member’s guests) then it would appear to be a public place, and thus relying on s.11A is unlikely to be a go-er.

All just my opinion and musings - as always, take your own professional legal advice that takes into account your own situation.

Any non members turning up to shoot need to visit the reception to give their details and get a card to operate the machines, so no unauthorised people hanging around

 

[Liveonce]

Unfortunately, you're not correct. The Criminal Justice Act 1972 updated the definition of a public place to be:



The pertinent bit there is have or are permitted to have access which does include any private land to which any member of the public has been permitted to have access at the relevant time. So in the stately home example, Blaser243 is quite correct to state that the home becomes "a public place" for the duration that the public are permitted to have access, at least as far as the CJA is concerned. It reverts to being a private place once the permission for the public to enter has been withdrawn.



As for the rest of the story and the actions of the Police - this to me is either connected to some other activity that has caught their attention or is the result of someone very overzealous looking to make a name for themselves somehow. I strongly suspect it is the former rather than the latter...

Thanks for that, you learn something new every day.

 

[Druid]

Our laws are ridiculous.
Unreasonably convoluted and open to unintentional error from those not versed in legal terminology.

Making the law abiding into law breakers by making things massively over complicated and confusing.

This country is doomed.