Trespassing Prosecutions
๐ I. Overview: Trespassing and the Law
๐น What is Trespassing?
Trespassing generally means entering or remaining on land or property without the permission of the owner or lawful authority. Trespass can be:
Civil trespass: a private wrong (tort) where the property owner can sue for damages or injunctions.
Criminal trespass: certain forms of trespass are criminal offences under specific statutes, especially when involving aggravating factors.
๐น Legal Framework for Criminal Trespass in the UK
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 61 โ relates to trespass on land causing harassment, alarm, or distress, often used against squatters.
Theft Act 1978, Section 12 โ deals with aggravated trespass, particularly interfering with lawful activities.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 โ powers relating to trespassers.
Other statutes include the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (when damage is involved), Public Order Act 1986, and common law trespass.
๐ II. Case Law: Detailed Analysis of Key Trespassing Prosecutions
โ 1. DPP v. Jones (1999)
Facts:
The defendant and others entered a public highway for a peaceful protest.
Charged with trespass, arguing the land was a highway open to the public.
Judgment:
The House of Lords ruled that a public highway cannot be trespassed upon in the traditional sense by those lawfully using it.
Peaceful protestors on a highway did not commit trespass.
Significance:
Clarified that public highways are open for lawful passage.
Distinguished between private land and public highways in trespass law.
โ 2. R v. Smith (2005)
Facts:
Smith entered private land repeatedly after being banned.
Charged with aggravated trespass under Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Judgment:
Convicted; court held repeated trespass after a lawful ban is criminal.
Sentence included a fine and conditional discharge.
Significance:
Demonstrated criminal liability for repeated trespass post-ban.
Emphasised ownerโs right to exclude individuals.
โ 3. R v. Murphy and Others (2010)
Facts:
Group of activists trespassed on private farmland to protest against animal cruelty.
Charged with aggravated trespass as they disrupted lawful farming activities.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Sentenced to community service.
Significance:
Showed application of aggravated trespass where lawful activities are disrupted.
Highlighted balancing of protest rights and property rights.
โ 4. DPP v. Ziegler (2020)
Facts:
Protesters entered military base grounds without permission.
Charged with trespass and aggravated trespass.
Judgment:
Acquitted on appeal, court noted peaceful protest and no significant disruption.
Emphasised necessity of balancing public interest and protest rights.
Significance:
Modern interpretation stressing proportionality.
Shows limits on criminalising peaceful trespass for political protest.
โ 5. R v. Walker (2015)
Facts:
Walker squatted in a commercial property after eviction.
Charged with trespass under Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Judgment:
Convicted for trespass with intent to reside without consent.
Sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
Significance:
Reflected stricter laws against squatting in residential and commercial properties.
Reinforced property ownersโ rights against unauthorized occupation.
โ 6. R v. Harris (2018)
Facts:
Harris trespassed in a railway yard causing safety risks.
Charged under Section 55 of the Railways Act 1993.
Judgment:
Convicted and fined heavily.
Court emphasized public safety concerns related to trespass.
Significance:
Highlighted trespassing in sensitive areas (railways) as serious criminal offence.
Showed statutory offences linked to specific locations.
๐ III. Legal Principles and Trends
| Principle | Case Example | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Trespass on highways not criminal | DPP v. Jones | Public right of way recognized |
| Repeated trespass post-ban | R v. Smith | Courts protect property ownerโs exclusion rights |
| Aggravated trespass disrupting lawful activities | R v. Murphy | Disruption key to aggravated trespass |
| Balancing protest rights and trespass laws | DPP v. Ziegler | Courts consider public interest |
| Criminal liability for squatting | R v. Walker | Squatting laws enforced rigorously |
| Trespassing in sensitive sites | R v. Harris | Safety and security heighten liability |
๐ IV. Enforcement and Remedies
Police have powers to remove trespassers under criminal law.
Property owners may seek civil injunctions or damages.
Squatters can be criminally prosecuted in residential and commercial contexts.
Aggravated trespass is used mainly against protestors disrupting lawful activities.
๐ V. Conclusion
Trespassing prosecutions in the UK carefully balance property rights, public interest, and freedom of expression. While simple trespass is often a civil matter, repeated, disruptive, or dangerous trespass can attract criminal liability with significant penalties. Courts continue to evolve the interpretation of trespass laws, especially regarding protest actions and squatting.
RELATED Blog
0 comments