Thread: The Law - any clarity?

What about the statement of reasonable cause? Didn't seem to be reasonable cause in those cases. But recently (last year or two) a guy was clay pigeon shooting on his lifestyle block in Nelson/motueka. Someone complained about noise was frightened. Was his clay pigeon shooting (no intention to scare) reasonable cause.

Reasonable cause is a possible defence, not a necessary element of the charge. The Defenant has to raise this defence and burden is only evidential. Once the defence is raised, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that defence cannot succeed. I am not aware of any cases discuss this point at length. I too wonder whether recreational shooting would suffice as reasonable cause. I would guess it does not. the legislative intention is to prevent people from firing shots somewhat carelessly (or intentionally to scare) and scare other people, but if shots reasonably needed to be fired, it is a valid defence. Therefore culling would be a reasonable need, recreational shooting probably is not.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Reasonable cause is a possible defence, not a necessary element of the charge. The Defenant has to raise this defence and burden is only evidential. Once the defence is raised, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that defence cannot succeed. I am not aware of any cases discuss this point at length. I too wonder whether recreational shooting would suffice as reasonable cause. I would guess it does not. the legislative intention is to prevent people from firing shots somewhat carelessly (or intentionally to scare) and scare other people, but if shots reasonably needed to be fired, it is a valid defence. Therefore culling would be a reasonable need, recreational shooting probably is not.

Actually quite an interesting point of law. Good post.

It is the confusing gun laws that make ownership of guns so adventurous. Isn't it guys?

I think somewhere I read within 80metres of a boundary. If its the countryside FFS, ppl shoot, dont like it move to the towns.

"Therefore culling would be a reasonable need, recreational shooting probably is not." I am sorry but I fail to see that recreational shooting is not a reasonable use, where done in a safe and appropriate manner and time.

Originally Posted by stug

What about the statement of reasonable cause? Didn't seem to be reasonable cause in those cases. But recently (last year or two) a guy was clay pigeon shooting on his lifestyle block in Nelson/motueka. Someone complained about noise was frightened. Was his clay pigeon shooting (no intention to scare) reasonable cause.

Was it reasonable for them to be frightened? if its no where near them then frankly I see no case, its their mental health issue.

Yes it could be a reasonable cause. Some people just get scared of gun shooting sound. You cannot help it. Either you should shift your house elsewhere or stop shooting altogether.

Where I sight rifles in is nearby another house, I let them know what's going on when I go down. Dont have to but it's curteous

Originally Posted by steven

"Therefore culling would be a reasonable need, recreational shooting probably is not." I am sorry but I fail to see that recreational shooting is not a reasonable use, where done in a safe and appropriate manner and time.

I don't see it either, but that is not the wording of the act.

48 Discharging firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near dwellinghouse or public place
Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $3,000 or to both who, without reasonable cause, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near—
(a) a dwellinghouse; or
(b) a public place,—
so as to endanger property or to endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.

Originally Posted by steven

Was it reasonable for them to be frightened? if its no where near them then frankly I see no case, its their mental health issue.

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.

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.

"so as to" indicates a requirement for intent, a deliberate act designed to endanger, annoy or frighten....

Reasonable cause does not prohibit recreational use as being a legitimate activity.... and whether you think the egg-shell defence is available or not, the judge will have to determine whether the person was in fact frightened, or annoyed. Part of that is a general understanding that they were entitled to be so, the the egg-shell sensitivity issue will certainly come into his deliberations.

It clearly ties back to reasonableness, and considering the intent of the statute overall - it was not designed to protect the supersensitive.

The point however is that this can fall either side of a judges bad day, and making your point is generally risky.

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.

Originally Posted by Sidney

"so as to" indicates a requirement for intent, a deliberate act designed to endanger, annoy or frighten....

Actually it does not. "so as to" means the defendant's actions resulted in that outcome. intention to that outcome is not required. but intention to discharge firearm must be proven.

This view was confirmed in Rose v Police and Dreaden v Police. both old 90s cases.

In Dreaden, the judge said :"My conclusion is that the prosecution must show that someone was in fact frightened, although at least in the context of this case it need not go further and point to any positive evidence of intention in that regard."

Reasonable cause does not prohibit recreational use as being a legitimate activity....

No, it does not. But my point is that reasonable cause is far more restrictive than reasonable use. reasonable use is just that, reasonable use. Reasonable cause is something that is almost rightous, to overcome or justify the harm done to the complainant.

and whether you think the egg-shell defence is available or not, the judge will have to determine whether the person was in fact frightened, or annoyed. Part of that is a general understanding that they were entitled to be so, the the egg-shell sensitivity issue will certainly come into his deliberations.

Egg-shell is not a defence, in fact it is a counter-defence. it is saying just defendant is liable even if the victim is extra sensitive.

It clearly ties back to reasonableness, and considering the intent of the statute overall - it was not designed to protect the supersensitive.

See my post above.