Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    B340 - Trespass Offences Bill, TSR UKIP



    Trespass Offences Bill [PDF][66 kB]



    A Bill to make new provision about trespass to land and inhabited dwelling, its prevention and possible punishments.

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1 Definitions
    For the purposes of this Act—
    (a) trespass to land involves unjustifiable interference with land and the space which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another;
    (b) trespass to inhabited dwelling involves unjustifiable interference with inhabited dwelling and the space which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another;
    (b) the expression "land" includes land covered with water;
    (c) possession of land or inhabited dwelling means the right to eject or exclude others from it;
    (d) occupant is a person who holds land or inhabited dwelling in actual possession;
    (e) inhabited dwelling is mainly a house, flat, vessel, aircraft, or other place of primary residence.

    2 Trespass to land
    (1) A Person commits an offence if he intentionally enters or is on any land as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) and refuses to leave the land on occupant's request.
    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
    (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.

    3 Trespass to inhabited dwelling
    (1) A Person commits an offense if he enters or is in any inhabited dwelling as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him).
    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
    (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years.

    4 Short title, commencement and extent
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Trespass Offences Act 2010.
    (2) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.
    (3) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.



    Explanatory Notes

    EXPLANATORY NOTES


    INTRODUCTION

    1. The current legislation regulating punishments in case of trespass is too generous and does not even consider it to be a criminal offence. This bill clearly defines and differentiates between two types of trespass and sets adequate punishments comparable with other European legal systems.

    COMMENTARY ON SECTIONS

    Section 2 / Section 3: Trespass to land / Trespass to inhabited dwelling

    2. (1) in both sections define the criminal offence whereas by the definition of section 2(1), an additional condition is added to prevent unintentional otherwise-trespassers from being prosecuted.

    3. The formulation "the proof whereof lies on him" does not violate the presumption of innocence and is already used in legislation of the United Kingdom. It only applies to "reasonable excuse", which is a special exception. Without this condition (that the onus of proving the reasonable excuse rests upon the suspect), the suspect would be able to claim any possible excuse, which would have to be disproved by the prosecution, hence even able to delay the process. The prosecution still has to prove that the suspect is a trespasser as defined in section 1 and his intention to enter any land or inhabited dwelling or stay there.

    4. The statutory maximum is set by various acts basically to £5,000 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and £10,000 in Scotland.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    • Offline

      16
      Nope.

      (1) Let the free-market solve such disputes over land trespass.
      (2) This legislation could empower the government against anyone on government property with imprisonment.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      Who on earth is primarily resident on an aircraft?!


      (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
      Nope.

      (1) Let the free-market solve such disputes over land trespass.
      The present way to stop trespass is to go through the courts and get an injunction which makes it a criminal offence to disobey instruction to keep out. This Bill simply hurries that along and removes the time and expense.

      I'm open-minded when it comes to this proposal. I'm very willing to consider real negatives.

      (2) This legislation could empower the government against anyone on government property with imprisonment.
      So? In several cases (trespass on MOD sites etc, certain defined areas like the Balmoral estate etc) trespassing on government property is already a criminal offence. You'll certainly get thrown in chokey for it. Why should people be allowed to remain there, if they are asked to leave by proper authority?
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by L i b)
      Who on earth is primarily resident on an aircraft?!
      Well, there was this German television show... :p: Apart from that, it could be a place of secondary suite, or how do you call it.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      Can I ask how this bill ties in with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Trespass should be a civil matter, like it already is IMO.

      So, no.
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      If UKIP are covering tresspassing laws, shouldn't they also be covering the laws concerning people defending themselves on their land from tresspassers?
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by thunder_chunky)
      If UKIP are covering tresspassing laws, shouldn't they also be covering the laws concerning people defending themselves on their land from tresspassers?
      Thats what I thought the Bill would have been about...
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      As the previous government already discussed this, you know my reasons.

      No.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Has anything been changed since last time this was presented to the house?


      I can't see any and therefore will vote no.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Student2806)
      Can I ask how this bill ties in with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act?
      I think that this requires my full attention and as I do not have much time now, I am going to reply to you on Friday or Saturday. I hope that it is all right.

      (Original post by Mann18)
      Trespass should be a civil matter, like it already is IMO.

      So, no.
      Care to explain why? With all due respect and without any harsh undertone, you are applying to universities including Oxford and still provide no arguments while this "game" is entirely about argumentation. Why do you even bother to reply?

      (Original post by thunder_chunky)
      If UKIP are covering tresspassing laws, shouldn't they also be covering the laws concerning people defending themselves on their land from tresspassers?
      Maybe we shall. In another bill.

      (Original post by cambo211)
      Has anything been changed since last time this was presented to the house?


      I can't see any and therefore will vote no.
      It was presented only to the government.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Life_peer)
      It was presented only to the government.
      That's what i meant :p:
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Life_peer)
      Maybe we shall. In another bill.
      This bill would be an ideal opportunity to cover it.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Life_peer)

      Care to explain why? With all due respect and without any harsh undertone, you are applying to universities including Oxford and still provide no arguments while this "game" is entirely about argumentation. Why do you even bother to reply?
      A part of me would like to simply say "Because " as I think you've been a little rude, and although you've said there was no harsh undertone, clearly, there was, I'm very upset. Once I manage to stop myself sobbing uncontrollably, I'll give you the explanation you deserve.

      I will give a brief explanation of why I said what I said now:

      Cars.
      If I park my car on someone else's land, (say in a car park belonging to a company) and leave it there, I have commited the offence of trespassing. Making this a criminal offence would lead to a large number of prosecutions, inundating our already full magistrates courts. There are of course more practical problems than this. This is what I'll call my "Practical Reasoning."

      Trespassing usually gives a benefit to the trespasser. If such a benefit is taken, the owner of the land should have the ability to reclaim any benefits that were taken from them without their permission. If no such benefit is taken, I don't see the point in even calling it trespassing. And as such, I don't see the point in making trespass a criminal offence.

      In short, I don't see the point, and if it were introduced, it would be difficult to enforce.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I don't really care, in all honesty.

      However, I'm inclined to go towards No, the reason being that I'm not a huge fan of prisons in the first place, and as Mann says, "If no such benefit is taken, I don't see the point in even calling it trespassing. And as such, I don't see the point in making trespass a criminal offence." That would sum up my ideal for a new system of justice, compensatory to the victim, reforming of the criminal. It would have a role for prison, a much reduced one, and this is a step away from my ideal, not towards it, so no.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      I completely disagree with this Bill. :noway: It is archaic, reactionary and unjust. This Bill deprives the majority of the population access to most of the land around them, confining it to a narrow elite of disproportionately powerful landowners. What are the implications for public rights of way? It is deeply unfair that people are criminalised for potentially walking in fields etc which although they don't legally own, they should have a legitimate right to enjoy. Furthermore, surely if a residence has been long-term unoccupied, it harms neither the owner nor society for certain individuals to take advantage of it on a short-term basis? Particularly when property is prohibitively expensive in central London, and yet the number of properties that remain unused in the capital is very high.
      This Bill protects private property and wealthy individuals at the expense of wider society, and so it's a definite no from me.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I'm inclined not to support this, since I'm very much in favour of the Right of Way. I also think that this bill leaves many crucial parts badly defined.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      As a horse would say... "Neeeeiiiggghh!"
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Cardozo)
      As a horse would say... "Neeeeiiiggghh!"
      Made me lol
     
     
     
    TSR Support Team

    We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

    Updated: December 14, 2010
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.