Thread: Police called out for Duck shooting

Originally Posted by Cigar

I think I would be responding to the letter (when it arrives) with one of my own, stating pretty much what you have said here.
Get your family member's response on record with the police as soon as practical before any issues occur (e.g. don't wait until license renewal time).

Thanks for your valued opinion, certainly where my thought process is at the moment.

Originally Posted by gundoc

#4 steel shot would not exceed 300 metres, more likely about 250.

I agree, I was prepared to allow for tail wind to cover that scenario even though conditions were calm.
If 250mts is used then it is almost 3 times that to the house.

Originally Posted by gmm

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

Thanks for that.

Another thought, what would the pattern spread be at 736mts....How many pellets would even hit the roof from a shot even if they got there. One or maybe two.

I’d be getting some proof the pellets couldn’t have gone that far, measure the distance on google Earth, etc. and the info above and then I’d go and see the Police and present it before he gets a letter saying his license is gone.

Since you weren't actually there... I would make darn sure said family member didn't happen to shoot at something Going to the shooting spot or didn't go for a wee wander and fire a shot somewhere you haven't considered, e.g getting a wounded bird or something. Otherwise it's pretty clear cut, but nothing is ever that clear cut...

Also.dont bring the how wide the spread would have been argument into it... that just discredits the original argument as you are saying it's impossible for a single pellet to hit the roof based on distance

Originally Posted by outdoorlad

I’d be getting some proof the pellets couldn’t have gone that far, measure the distance on google Earth, etc. and the info above and then I’d go and see the Police and present it before he gets a letter saying his license is gone.

The 736mts comes from google earth, already have multiple world wide articles on steel shot max distances....thinking about having a chat with our local officer to make sure the lead officer involved has some insight.

Did the police take any samples of the ammo you were firing? no? Probably means they recovered no samples from the complainants house and/or the complainant had no samples to present.

Do everything in writing, as even if you do not get convicted it will all be on record.

Ask for a copy of the complaint.

Will need to do a offical information act request to get copy
of complaint.

The Journee formula is another statistical way to determine a shotgun’s shell distance. It says that if pellet diameter (calculated in inches) is multiplied by 2200, then the resulting figure is a hypothetical distance of pellet (calculated in yards). For example, a gun pellet with 0.11 inches diameter covers 242 yards.

Also there was something recently in the news about "written letters" and the legality of them, have a read here: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...ormal-warnings

Originally Posted by vulcannz

Also there was something recently in the news about "written letters" and the legality of them, have a read here: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...ormal-warnings

Thanks for that info and link.

I am no lawyer, but there are serious procedural issues here, if events occurred as reported.

I would not be asking the police to look for any evidence so long after the fact. Indeed, if shot of any description is found, it just opens up a whole can of worms.

I would be contacting a lawyer, and, based on the fact that evidence was not collected at the time of the complaint, and based on the fact that a shotgun cannot throw shot that distance, and since your mobile phone can be forensically examined to determine your precise location on the day, that there is grounds to believe that the complaint is spurious and any subsequent sanction by police is groundless.

Any investigator worth their salt would have looked for evidence of shot in the gutter at the time of the complaint. Since the police inspected your weapons, they should have made a note of the exact type of ammunition you possessed at the time. That would be able to link you to any shot found in the gutter, if the shot matched the ammunition. It may be impossible to determine the weapon that discharged the shot, but the size of any shot found in the gutter, as well as metallic composition, degree of rust, etc. could have conclusively proved whether you could have been the origin of the shot or not.

Without a record of the ammunition in your possession at the time they spoke to you and inspected your firearms, it would be very difficult to sustain your guilt even if shot was found in the gutter.

The police could, however, simply point to the fact that the person was simply annoyed - the legal test for this is so wide open it would be virtually impossible to disprove such a claim, and the fact that they made a call to police probably means that they were. However, that is not why they called on you, and they never mentioned the person being annoyed - only that the complainant alleged that shot had struck their roof.

Irrespective of the above, I would be very careful of shooting at that site again. If I were to do so, I would make sure that every member of the party had a GoPro recording everything that was said and done, every shot taken, and every word spoken to or by police, if that eventuated. Just like a dash cam, the footage could save your bacon, and serve as grounds for dismissal of the complaint against you.

There is a lot to lose if this does not got correctly, without doubt I would contact Nick Taylor, specialist firearms lawyer. A letter from him wont be cheap but could easily put this to bed before it escalates.

Were you the only hunter that had access and was there that day ?
Can the Police and complainant prove it was you and only you there if it’s a public / DOC area ?
Did you admit/say that you shot in the direction of the neighbour ?

Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin

I am no lawyer, but there are serious procedural issues here, if events occurred as reported.

I would not be asking the police to look for any evidence so long after the fact. Indeed, if shot of any description is found, it just opens up a whole can of worms.

I would be contacting a lawyer, and, based on the fact that evidence was not collected at the time of the complaint, and based on the fact that a shotgun cannot throw shot that distance, and since your mobile phone can be forensically examined to determine your precise location on the day, that there is grounds to believe that the complaint is spurious and any subsequent sanction by police is groundless.

Any investigator worth their salt would have looked for evidence of shot in the gutter at the time of the complaint. Since the police inspected your weapons, they should have made a note of the exact type of ammunition you possessed at the time. That would be able to link you to any shot found in the gutter, if the shot matched the ammunition. It may be impossible to determine the weapon that discharged the shot, but the size of any shot found in the gutter, as well as metallic composition, degree of rust, etc. could have conclusively proved whether you could have been the origin of the shot or not.

Without a record of the ammunition in your possession at the time they spoke to you and inspected your firearms, it would be very difficult to sustain your guilt even if shot was found in the gutter.

The police could, however, simply point to the fact that the person was simply annoyed - the legal test for this is so wide open it would be virtually impossible to disprove such a claim, and the fact that they made a call to police probably means that they were. However, that is not why they called on you, and they never mentioned the person being annoyed - only that the complainant alleged that shot had struck their roof.

Irrespective of the above, I would be very careful of shooting at that site again. If I were to do so, I would make sure that every member of the party had a GoPro recording everything that was said and done, every shot taken, and every word spoken to or by police, if that eventuated. Just like a dash cam, the footage could save your bacon, and serve as grounds for dismissal of the complaint against you.

Agreed, reluctant to be bullied out of such a productive spot.