Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 121:"Page 30, line 39, after ““if”” insert ““, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse””" The noble Earl said: Members of the Committee will be getting very fed up of me in a minute. In moving Amendment No. 121, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 122 and 123. In the Bill, a complex Clause 29(2) makes provision for cases where a person legitimately shoots from one set of premises to another, but remains limited to those places where the defendant can show that he had at least a form of consent. Cases will arise, for instance, when a person is using an air weapon for vermin control when he or she may shoot on to premises in the belief that consent would be given—for example, in destroying vermin that is just over a boundary or when he genuinely but wrongly believes that he had consent or would have been given consent. In all cases where he or she occupies the property or has consent to shoot, he has lawful authority, but in cases of genuine error he will have no defence. The courts have always interpreted terms like ““reasonable excuse”” with some vigour and the term,"““without lawful authority or reasonable excuse””," is extensively used in the Firearms Acts and the Anti-social Behaviour Act—having a firearm, for instance, in a public place—and in connection with offensive weapons. It is a well known term that is much more concise and more easily understood than the terms proposed in the Bill and allows a more flexible approach. I beg to move.