Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B340 - Trespass Offences Bill (Second Reading) Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    B340 - Trespass Offences Bill (Second Reading), TSR UKIP

    Trespass Offences Bill


    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 ground covered with water and only defines an area enclosed by a clearly visible upright structure used to mark its boundaries;
    (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 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.
    (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 .


    Previous Discussions

    First Reading
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Still a no from me.


    I wish people would highlight what hass been changed for second readings.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just out of interest, why do you feel that this Bill is necessary?

    Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 already enables a police officer to direct trespassers on land to leave where the occupier has asked them to do so, in cases where they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour. It is a criminal offence to refuse to leave, or to return (within 3 months).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    Still a no from me.


    I wish people would highlight what hass been changed for second readings.
    I did highlight the changes and summarised them in my original post, however I do not think that it is too hard to compare.

    Land has to be enclosed by e.g. a fence now and the reasonable excuse whereof proof lies on the suspect option has been removed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anony mouse)
    Just out of interest, why do you feel that this Bill is necessary?

    Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 already enables a police officer to direct trespassers on land to leave where the occupier has asked them to do so, in cases where they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour. It is a criminal offence to refuse to leave, or to return (within 3 months).
    This bill is much more strict plus covers a larger area of possible interference with land and properties.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Still a no. This doesn't really address my concerns. I believe the public should have the right to access land, even if it is enclosed by a fence, and won't support a repealing of this right.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandys1000)
    Still a no. This doesn't really address my concerns. I believe the public should have the right to access land, even if it is enclosed by a fence, and won't support a repealing of this right.
    It would be interesting to see your reaction if you were in your seventies and a couple of teenagers were wandering on your grounds.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandys1000)
    Still a no. This doesn't really address my concerns. I believe the public should have the right to access land, even if it is enclosed by a fence, and won't support a repealing of this right.
    Would you say that then to the person who is terrified by the local youths who trespass into their garden. Currently, and I speak this from experience, the police have no right to remove them. This Bill gives them that right and lets the terrorised person have a little more freedom from intimidation. Can you explain why you think that this is such a bad consequence of this Bill and why you believe that your line of thought is better than what I have put forward?
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    It would be interesting to see your reaction if you were in your seventies and a couple of teenagers were wandering on your grounds.
    I like your hint there, but I'm way ahead of you. Already posted that point below
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But there are already criminal laws covering the sort of scenario you describe.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anony mouse)
    But there are already criminal laws covering the sort of scenario you describe.
    Then why aren't they being applied? I have experience of this and have been told on several occasions by police that they are not doing anything wrong and there is nothing that they can do to prevent them being on private property.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    It would be interesting to see your reaction if you were in your seventies and a couple of teenagers were wandering on your grounds.
    If I owned thousands of acres then I don't see why I should object to teenagers, or anyone else, being on my land, provided they're not committing a crime.

    (Original post by toronto353)
    Would you say that then to the person who is terrified by the local youths who trespass into their garden. Currently, and I speak this from experience, the police have no right to remove them. This Bill gives them that right and lets the terrorised person have a little more freedom from intimidation. Can you explain why you think that this is such a bad consequence of this Bill and why you believe that your line of thought is better than what I have put forward?
    Oh no, I don't mean gardens. As far as I'm aware, the law, in Scotland anyway, defines a minimum distance from dwellings at which access applies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The only people I can see using this is the state, and not in a good way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Then why aren't they being applied?
    :iiam:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I have made at least one major change, so theoretically, many of those who were opposed to this bill in the previous government and the first reading should now have no problem with voting in its favour. Can you please confirm this presumption, those against reasonable excuses to be proven by the defendant?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Just a quick question on this. how would this legislation effect the following...

    1) Peaceful protests
    2) Travellers
    3) Squatters
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is in cessation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This has gone to vote, here.
 
 
 
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 24, 2010
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.

  • 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.