Thread: The Law - any clarity?

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Whether it is reasonable for the complainant to be frightened is not a element of this section. Generally speaking egg shell skull principles apply. As long as it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was frightened, that limb of the section is satisfied.

Whether the discharge was sufficiently close, on the proper reading of the section, is a separate issue that needs to be proven by the prosecution.

It might not be an 'element' of the section however it would be relevant in the case. If, from an objective view, the fear is completely irrational then it would be chucked out. Unless the defendant has shown a serious case of gross negligence then this type of charge wouldn't be pursued.

Also the distance would relate directly to the reason for the shooting in my opinion, one shot shooting a sick cow is different to 100s of rounds shooting clays.

Originally Posted by Savage1

It might not be an 'element' of the section however it would be relevant in the case. If, from an objective view, the fear is completely irrational then it would be chucked out. Unless the defendant has shown a serious case of gross negligence then this type of charge wouldn't be pursued.

Also the distance would relate directly to the reason for the shooting in my opinion, one shot shooting a sick cow is different to 100s of rounds shooting clays.

Whether someone is frightened is a matter of fact. i.e. did that happen. whether it was reasonable for that to happen is a matter of value judgement. The section does not involve that value judgement, but involves that matter of fact.

If the judge thinks it was not possible for the complainant to have been frightened, then the prosecution has not proven this fact, accordingly no conviction.
If the judge thinks most persons in the complainant would not have been frightened (your unreasonable to be frightened point) but accepts that he was frightened nevertheless, then this element of the charge is satisfied.