Thread: The Law - any clarity?

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.