The trespass trap

[Joker 1299]

This one:
Q12: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the police should be granted the power to remove trespassers from land that forms part of the highway?

We believe giving the police powers to seize property, including vehicles, could enable the police to remove unauthorised encampments more quickly and act as deterrent to setting up an unauthorised encampment. We would welcome views on whether to grant police powers to seize property from trespassers and in what circumstances they should have these powers.

An encampment would be two or more vehicles. A single Campervan isn’t.

 

[Lightning]

An encampment would be two or more vehicles. A single Campervan isn’t.

Yes, so if you park up in a spot shared by one or more others, this becomes an encampment. A single car + caravan also counts as an encampment.

 

[Joker 1299]

Yes, so if you park up in a spot shared by one or more others, this becomes an encampment. A single car + caravan also counts as an encampment.

So, to return to my question about LGV’s, 3 unrelated trucks parked up in a lay-by would be committing an offence and risk their trucks being permanently confiscated? I don’t think so.

 

[Joker 1299]

Yes, so if you park up in a spot shared by one or more others, this becomes an encampment. A single car + caravan also counts as an encampment.

So, to return to my question about LGV’s, 3 unrelated trucks parked up in a lay-by would be committing an offence and risk their trucks being permanently confiscated? I don’t think so.

 

[Lightning]

So, to return to my question about LGV’s, 3 unrelated trucks parked up in a lay-by would be committing an offence and risk their trucks being permanently confiscated? I don’t think so.

I doubt it too. A trucker could no doubt claim he was on a mandatory stop. It could however be used to force them to use truck stops. The point is that the law can be interpreted and applied how they choose. If they want to use it to make people use campsites they could.

 

[Amarillo]

I doubt it too. A trucker could no doubt claim he was on a mandatory stop. It could however be used to force them to use truck stops. The point is that the law can be interpreted and applied how they choose. If they want to use it to make people use campsites they could.

Politicians make laws, it is judges who interpret them.

Also note that it is not trespass if you are on the land with the owners consent. Parking on land which forms part of the highway, including overnight parking, is consented unless indicated otherwise. If this law is enacted, a simple sign “no overnight parking” would probably be sufficient to criminalise camping overnight in a lay-by.

 

[Lightning]

Politicians make laws, it is judges who interpret them.

Also note that it is not trespass if you are on the land with the owners consent. Parking on land which forms part of the highway, including overnight parking, is consented unless indicated otherwise. If this law is enacted, a simple sign “no overnight parking” would probably be sufficient to criminalise camping overnight in a lay-by.

The law change applies to the whole highway. No sign would be required because it becomes illegal to stop with the intent to reside anywhere on the highway. It’s a significant change to current practice.

 

[Lightning]

Politicians make laws, it is judges who interpret them.

Also note that it is not trespass if you are on the land with the owners consent. Parking on land which forms part of the highway, including overnight parking, is consented unless indicated otherwise. If this law is enacted, a simple sign “no overnight parking” would probably be sufficient to criminalise camping overnight in a lay-by.

Also, the police would have the power to seize your vehicle without any prior warning or notification.
You can argue with judge while it’s being sold at auction or crushed!

 

[Velma's Dad]

As I understand it, the proposal is to criminalise trespass. You are not trespassing on public land. You can only trespass on private land.

Not so. It's perfectly possible to trespass on 'public' land (eg a park, after it's closed for the night, or on the railways when they were in public ownership). In fact there's no such thing as public land, it's all owned by someone, which might be a statutory body or a council. The owner of the 'public' land has just the same rights and responsibilities in respect of trespassers as do private landowners.

The laws of trespass are complex but at the moment are mostly governed by civil law, not criminal.

 

[Joker 1299]

Not so. It's perfectly possible to trespass on 'public' land (eg a park, after it's closed for the night, or on the railways when they were in public ownership). In fact there's no such thing as public land, it's all owned by someone, which might be a statutory body or a council. The owner of the 'public' land has just the same rights and responsibilities in respect of trespassers as do private landowners.

The laws of trespass are complex but at the moment are mostly governed by civil law, not criminal.

I agree that rights of access may be modified or restricted by notice - no trespassing on the railway, no overnight parking, no entry to the park after 9.30, but in the absence of such restrictions, it’s not trespass.

 

[Amarillo]

The law change applies to the whole highway. No sign would be required because it becomes illegal to stop with the intent to reside anywhere on the highway. It’s a significant change to current practice.

I missed that bit.

This is what I saw:
===========
We would also like to consult on the following alternative approach to this issue:

• [...]
• Amending section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to enable the police to remove trespassers from land that forms part of the highway.

===========
And this:
===========
We would welcome views on whether to amend section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to enable the police to remove trespassers from land that forms part of the highway. The police are currently restricted in dealing with these encampments unless there is a suitable pitch in the same local authority area. This could make it easier for the police to tackle problematic encampments.
===========
I know that the term highway covers all parts of a road including footways and service roads, and byways. I also know that the land forming part of a highway may be privately owned.

The proposal appears to be criminalising trespass on the highway. Trespass is defined as "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another."

Bringing everything together, I don't see camping in a layby as trespass: indeed, it is in part what laybys are for.

 

[Lightning]

I agree that rights of access may be modified or restricted by notice - no trespassing on the railway, no overnight parking, no entry to the park after 9.30, but in the absence of such restrictions, it’s not trespass.

This law unambiguously makes it trespass without notice on the highway.

 

[Joker 1299]

This law unambiguously makes it trespass without notice on the highway.

Camping, in certain circumstances, maybe. I was talking generally. Otherwise if trespass becomes a crime, we would all be committing an offence by walking down the street.

 

[Lightning]

I missed that bit.

This is what I saw:
===========
We would also like to consult on the following alternative approach to this issue:

• [...]
• Amending section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to enable the police to remove trespassers from land that forms part of the highway.

===========
And this:
===========
We would welcome views on whether to amend section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to enable the police to remove trespassers from land that forms part of the highway. The police are currently restricted in dealing with these encampments unless there is a suitable pitch in the same local authority area. This could make it easier for the police to tackle problematic encampments.
===========
I know that the term highway covers all parts of a road including footways and service roads, and byways. I also know that the land forming part of a highway may be privately owned.

The proposal appears to be criminalising trespass on the highway. Trespass is defined as "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another."

Bringing everything together, I don't see camping in a layby as trespass: indeed, it is in part what laybys are for.

Lay-bys are part of the highway. If a group of travellers set up camp in lay-by one aspect of this trespass (their word) law is that it is intended to allow the police to move them on and confiscate their vehicles immediately. Everyone else caught up in it is collateral damage.

As for making it illegal to walk down the street, the article cites that being homeless in a tent or bobby bag on public land without permission becomes a criminal offence. Furthermore as lots of public spaces are owned by private companies, the interior to reside for any period of time is criminalised.

 

[Lightning]

Lay-bys are part of the highway. If a group of travellers set up camp in lay-by one aspect of this trespass (their word) law is that it is intended to allow the police to move them on and confiscate their vehicles immediately. Everyone else caught up in it is collateral damage.

As for making it illegal to walk down the street, the article cites that being homeless in a tent or bobby bag on public land without permission becomes a criminal offence. Furthermore as lots of public spaces are owned by private companies, the interior to reside for any period of time is criminalised.

Bivvy bag not bobby...

 

[Lightning]

Bivvy bag not bobby...

Intention not interior, how do I turn off auto correct!

 

[Amarillo]

Lay-bys are part of the highway. If a group of travellers set up camp in lay-by one aspect of this trespass (their word) law is that it is intended to allow the police to move them on and confiscate their vehicles immediately. Everyone else caught up in it is collateral damage.

Without your giving specifics, I am really struggling to understand how you draw the conclusions you draw. From everything I have read it seems that a warning needs to be given before the matter become criminal trespass. If the proposals are accepted, it would be the failure to heed that warning that turns the civil trespass into a criminal act and actionable by the police.

 

[Lightning]

Without your giving specifics, I am really struggling to understand how you draw the conclusions you draw. From everything I have read it seems that a warning needs to be given before the matter become criminal trespass. If the proposals are accepted, it would be the failure to heed that warning that turns the civil trespass into a criminal act and actionable by the police.

It’s from this question in the consultation. If the consultation concludes that no warning is required, then no warning needs to be given:
Q3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the landowner or representatives of the landowner should take reasonable steps to ask persons occupying their land to remove themselves and their possessions before occupation of the land can be considered a criminal offence?
Strongly agree / Agree / Neither agree or disagree / Disagree / Strongly disagree Please explain your answer

 

[Lightning]

From the article:


The consultation is everything such exercises are not supposed to be. It is confusing and heavily slanted. It is pitched in such a way that, however you might answer the questions, you are forced to agree with a profoundly illiberal idea.
For example, the first question asks: “To what extent do you agree or disagree that knowingly entering land without the landowner’s permission should only be made a criminal offence if it is for the purpose of residing on it?”It’s a perfect trap. If you agree, you consent to the curtailment of the traditional rights and lives of Roma and Travellers. If you disagree, you consent to the criminalisation of something much wider, which, throughout English history has been a civil matter: trespass on land.

 

[Velma's Dad]

We need to be clear that this is a consultation and although various options are mentioned in the questions and other text, it isn't proposing one specific package.

I'd be very surprised if they ended up going for an approach in which the police can summarily and without notice seize vehicles/possessions, although anything's possible. But they might give the police that power, so that they can give a verbal warning to move on and if that's not complied with they can go back the same day and forcibly evict/confiscate without getting a court order.

I'm not saying I'd personally be happy with any of this, by the way.

 

[Lightning]

We need to be clear that this is a consultation and although various options are mentioned in the questions and other text, it isn't proposing one specific package.

I'd be very surprised if they ended up going for an approach in which the police can summarily and without notice seize vehicles/possessions, although anything's possible. But they might give the police that power, so that they can give a verbal warning to move on and if that's not complied with they can go back the same day and forcibly evict/confiscate without getting a court order.

I'm not saying I'd personally be happy with any of this, by the way.

I hope you respond to the consultation accordingly!

 

[MattBW]

From the article:


The consultation is everything such exercises are not supposed to be. It is confusing and heavily slanted. It is pitched in such a way that, however you might answer the questions, you are forced to agree with a profoundly illiberal idea.
For example, the first question asks: “To what extent do you agree or disagree that knowingly entering land without the landowner’s permission should only be made a criminal offence if it is for the purpose of residing on it?”It’s a perfect trap. If you agree, you consent to the curtailment of the traditional rights and lives of Roma and Travellers. If you disagree, you consent to the criminalisation of something much wider, which, throughout English history has been a civil matter: trespass on land.

Welcome to the world of consultations lol. I used to work on Streetworks.NRSWA based consultations a few years ago and they are often designed by committee, sometimes have a political agenda behind them and occasionally felt structured to be a foregone conclusion (or just a nod to the "consultation" process rather). However they generally had those ambiguities or traps pointed out and challenged I am glad to say.

They would also include the harshest options to allow for a degree of slip back.

 

[Tandt]

I am sure it is designed to be used when necessary to give those suffering from travellers just taking over their land. Not many would bother with 1 or 2 nights as by the time the law kicks in the problem has gone!

 

[Jodalo]

I am sure it is designed to be used when necessary to give those suffering from travellers just taking over their land. Not many would bother with 1 or 2 nights as by the time the law kicks in the problem has gone!

Absolutely agree. As I understand it from what I have read, the Police are not supportive of these proposals. There is no way practically they would have the resources to deal with confiscating/removing caravans/campervan/motorhomes etc. from lay-bys, car parks etc unless it was absolutely the last resort. They are barely able to attend burglaries and other serious incidents. I don’t believe these proposals will make any difference to users of this forum.

 

[Deskman]

Absolutely agree. As I understand it from what I have read, the Police are not supportive of these proposals.

The problem with legislation that is very restrictive and open for interpretation, is that it is possible to use it on a single campervan somewhere in the wild. It is exactly the kind of agreement with your boss you won't sign - especially when he says: we will never use that rule, just sign here, and afterwards discovering you've thereby abandoned your rights.

(disclaimer: I'm Dutch, so native Dunglish)