Drone shot down in UK.

[phil_b]

I have seen a few comments in regard to the hunt saboteurs trespassing by flying the drone over private property. This is a quote from a conversation " the legislation is already in place under tresspass law for a civil remedy, the defining case in this area is Bernstein v sky views 1978. This case established the idea that a Land owner has ownership of the airspace above their property to the point of nessesary use and enjoyment. " I assumed that if you stuck to the CAA guidelines then you would be ok but maybe i am wrong.

 

[jmt]

I have seen a few comments in regard to the hunt saboteurs trespassing by flying the drone over private property. This is a quote from a conversation " the legislation is already in place under tresspass law for a civil remedy, the defining case in this area is Bernstein v sky views 1978. This case established the idea that a Land owner has ownership of the airspace above their property to the point of nessesary use and enjoyment. " I assumed that if you stuck to the CAA guidelines then you would be ok but maybe i am wrong.

Any remedy under civil law would not be a defence against a charge of criminal damage.

 

[jmt]

I have seen a few comments in regard to the hunt saboteurs trespassing by flying the drone over private property. This is a quote from a conversation " the legislation is already in place under tresspass law for a civil remedy, the defining case in this area is Bernstein v sky views 1978. This case established the idea that a Land owner has ownership of the airspace above their property to the point of nessesary use and enjoyment. " I assumed that if you stuck to the CAA guidelines then you would be ok but maybe i am wrong.

In the judgement, Judge Griffiths stated "I can find no support in authority for the view that a landowner's rights in the air space above his property extend to an unlimited height." and it is certainly the case that 'ordinary commercial and private flights would, in any event, have been protected from actions in trespass by section 40(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 (now Civil Aviation Act 1982, section 76(1)).' The case further established that the Act covered flying for the purposes of taking photographs, and was not restricted to flights for the purpose of travelling.

Given the case law, I suspect that to count as a trespass a flight would have to directly interfere with activity on the ground or inside or upon a building or structure. Such direct interference would almost certainly violate the CAA's 50m proximity restriction regarding buildings/people, but breaking of the 50m restriction would not, of itself, be enough to establish interference with the owner's ordinary use and enjoyment of his land.

 

[zocalo]

Any remedy under civil law would not be a defence against a charge of criminal damage.

It wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that the hunt couldn't pursue a civil case against the pilot independantly of the prosecution of whoever shot the drone down, especially if they can get the landowner onside.

This whole situation is a mess, if you ask me, as there is the potential for all of the following mix of criminal and civil prosecutions, just based on the accounts in the original story:

• Illegal activities during a hunt
• Unsafe discharge of a firearm
• Criminal damage
• Assault (the story mentions a physical confrontation later in the day)
• Trespass (on the ground and in the air, by multiple persons)

If you look at the footage (link to story containing it), it does appear that the drone was being flown according to the drone code. I had wondered about that since a shotgun at 50m+, let alone taken upwards, is a pretty good/lucky shot. Also, since multiple people on the ground appear unaware of the drone until someone points it out, I doubt they'll have much of trespass case because of Griffith's ruling in the post above, but that would be up to a judge if it came to it.

Frankly though, given the highly suspicious looking activities in the footage, I doubt the hunt is going to want this anywhere near a courtroom, criminal or civil. Looks very much to me that the shooter managed not only to land a shot on the drone, but one into their own foot as well.

 

[jmt]

It wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that the hunt couldn't pursue a civil case against the pilot independantly of the prosecution of whoever shot the drone down, especially if they can get the landowner onside.

This whole situation is a mess, if you ask me, as there is the potential for all of the following mix of criminal and civil prosecutions, just based on the accounts in the original story:

• Illegal activities during a hunt
• Unsafe discharge of a firearm
• Criminal damage
• Assault (the story mentions a physical confrontation later in the day)
• Trespass (on the ground and in the air, by multiple persons)

If you look at the footage (link to story containing it), it does appear that the drone was being flown according to the drone code. I had wondered about that since a shotgun at 50m+, let alone taken upwards, is a pretty good/lucky shot. Also, since multiple people on the ground appear unaware of the drone until someone points it out, I doubt they'll have much of trespass case because of Griffith's ruling in the post above, but that would be up to a judge if it came to it.

Frankly though, given the highly suspicious looking activities in the footage, I doubt the hunt is going to want this anywhere near a courtroom, criminal or civil. Looks very much to me that the shooter managed not only to land a shot on the drone, but one into their own foot as well.

Yes, I agree. It was interesting that it took several shots to hit the drone and that, even then, it was able to fly home. I have no experience with shotguns but I would have expected more. The initial shots showed up as a solid line in the video so he may have had the gun on full choke.

 

[zocalo]

Yes, I agree. It was interesting that it took several shots to hit the drone and that, even then, it was able to fly home. I have no experience with shotguns but I would have expected more. The initial shots showed up as a solid line in the video so he may have had the gun on full choke.

I've shot 12-gauge twin barrels and single barrel pumps, but only at clay pigeons and range targets, so I'm not sure what the typical load would be for fox hunting. I'd assume it would be for fairly close range kill shots at cornered/injured foxes, so presumably larger pellets than for birding or clay pigeons and at least some choke. Even with full choke though, that's still going to give a fair bit of dispersal in flight to the drone, given it appears to be being flown legally and therefore at least 50m away.

I'd guess only a few pellets actually hit the drone - the camera definitely got hit as you can see the broken lens in the footage, and it seems likely to have got a rotor too since they are quite a large fraction of target area. Probably missed the battery though, since it didn't ignite and destroy the drone.

 

[Bigbird48]

I'll be travelling in Scotland in May and will bring my drone for great aerial shots of old castles, Nessie, and other things we don't find in the New World. Should I be worried?

Oh man you got to get a shot of Nessie and post it for us that would be the balls.

 

[Drgnfli]

I wish i was brave enough to kill another animal with my bare hands, oh wait you shoot them with bullets from a ways away. I wish I was so brave that I could shoot another animal in the head because its so much fun. I think I would feel so powerful and brave if I could just kill kill kill for fun fun fun. Maybe one day I will be a real man?

LOL! You have been properly Disney trained... ROFLMAO!

 

[Bigbird48]

I wish i was brave enough to kill another animal with my bare hands, oh wait you shoot them with bullets from a ways away. I wish I was so brave that I could shoot another animal in the head because its so much fun. I think I would feel so powerful and brave if I could just kill kill kill for fun fun fun. Maybe one day I will be a real man?

It so much easier to stick the front end of that 12 gadget up the back end of those so called hunters and pull the trigger, then it is to kill a defenseless fox.

 

[Beejoo]

I totally agree with every word you say. I hunt (in UK), and can tell you that a drone used over private land by an aggressive sab is pretty unacceptable. They are always trying to 'prove' that the hunts are carrying out illegal acts, but despite numerous attempts over the years, have never had a successful prosecution that I'm aware of. So let's be honest - the sabs are just flying their drones as a provocation. As a Mavic owner myself, I probably wouldn't shoot it down - but I'm not surprised that others would!

 

[Beejoo]

Incidentally, why are hunt sabs always masked? I guess so they can get away with their trespassing and their aggressive behaviour without getting themselves arrested. Genuine protesters have a point of view, but they don't cover their faces to make it!

 

[Flying Nun]

I'll be travelling in Scotland in May and will bring my drone for great aerial shots of old castles, Nessie, and other things we don't find in the New World. Should I be worried?

I will be doing the same but in June

 

[lap9]

Incidentally, why are hunt sabs always masked? I guess so they can get away with their trespassing and their aggressive behaviour without getting themselves arrested. Genuine protesters have a point of view, but they don't cover their faces to make it!

If you go out with a hunt, you will already know that your supporters, terrier men and other riders are completely unhinged individuals and will do their best at finding the sabs home address and cause damage their property.

Sabs protect their identity for this very reason.

As for your comment about hunts not carrying out any illegal activities, you don't believe that do you? Theres endless footage and recent prosecutions of them hunting illegally.

 

[mavic3usa]

If you go out with a hunt, you will already know that your supporters, terrier men and other riders are completely unhinged individuals and will do their best at finding the sabs home address and cause damage their property.

Sabs protect their identity for this very reason.

As for your comment about hunts not carrying out any illegal activities, you don't believe that do you? Theres endless footage and recent prosecutions of them hunting illegally.

Responding to a post from nearly 5 years ago is a bit extreme don't you think?

 

[lap9]

Responding to a post from nearly 5 years ago is a bit extreme don't you think?

Responding to a post from nearly 5 years ago is a bit extreme don't you think?

Why is it "extreme"?

 

[mavic3usa]

Why is it "extreme"?

Because it's in the category called "News" and there's nothing new about a 5 y.o. thread.

Hey I'm just messing with you, no worries. Likely many of the posters in this thread are no longer here or don't remember what they said. Welcome to the forum, there are hundreds of good posts here to participate in, looking forward to your input from across the pond, we have a lot of UK/EU members here as well.