Thread: Police called out for Duck shooting

Section 48 Arms Act

Discharging firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near dwellinghouse or public place
A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding $10,000, if the person, without reasonable excuse, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near a dwellinghouse or a public place so as to—
(a)
endanger property; or
(b)
endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.

This is the legislation, the burden of proof is on the Police to prove that an offence has been committed.

In this case they need to prove the following.
- Without reasonable excuse
-An intent to endanger property, endanger, annoy or frighten any person. The intent is cover by the words "so as to"

The shooter had a reasonable excuse, proven by DOC permit and duck hunting licence.
If there was no intent to endanger, annoy or frighten anyone, there is no offence.

There is no such offence as discharging a firearm in an unsafe direction.

If they do send you a letter I would challenge it as if the circumstances are as you describe (not questioning you at all), then it is clear there is no offence. If you do receive a letter I would dispute it. To be honest it sounds like the Police in this case are not fully aware of the requirements of the legislation and you should have no problems.
Be interested to see how this goes.
All the best