Thread: The Law - any clarity?

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.

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 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.

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

No I am saying you haven't made your case... don't bother quoting latin at me, I know just as much as you do, if not more. The wider audience are already unimpressed with this argument already, and latin will finish them off.

Dreadon as you quoted it, does not bind other cases in applying the need for intention to be established. The judge say specifically that in the quote that you made. Again you fail to qualify the context or the facts in argument - it is possible that the judge brought in other levels of accountability, recklessness or carelessness but you do not specify. You made the argument - I just questioned it - you need to back it up..

Egg shell sensitivity? What about mental injury? The most obvious area? Do you think that the mental effect of being frightened might have some relationship to that area of law in allowing a judge to determine the merit of the complainants case?

This law cannot be applied in the absense of knowledge, absence of intent, abcense of recklessness or carelessness. If it was that would lead to inequitable outcome. All I am asking you to do is to clarify what is required to establish this offence and what you have quoted from Dreadon does not do that. This is not a strict liability offence.