Clause 27 - Firing an air weapon beyond premises
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
11:00 am
John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)
That is not something that I have ever encountered; it may well have happened to others.
It is possible that a weapon may be accidentally discharged without intent. It is equally possible that if the said crofter was standing towards the edge of his property at the time of such discharge, the projectile would land outside his premises. The unintentional discharge would therefore not be reckless, because all the safety measures would have been in place. Albeit that that is a strange circumstance to have discovered, it can take place. Do we wish to create a criminal out of that person? I suggest that we do not.
It was helpful to look at the explanatory note on clause 27, which is note number 170. It clearly states:
''One type of air weapon misuse involves the reckless firing of an air weapon across the boundary of premises.''
So, in the notes themselves, the definition of reckless is used to indicate the Government's intention. I ask the Minister why, if it is required in the notes, it is not required in the clause. Would it not be useful to have that definition so that the Government's intention is clear: that reckless or intentional discharge, or both, would have taken place?