Tresspass: rights of the land owner

Our man in Havana

Hypothetical situation: A person knocks a door of a house and demands he speak to a person about a debt. Said person does not wish to speak to the person at the door. The person that owns the house asks the person to leave and he refuses and said he states that he would continue to call. At this point is the person trespassing?

What remedies are available to deal with such a situation. Is force allowed to remove a trespasser from private property.

Turner

If the owner of the property wishes to have the person removed he should call the gardai.

They can use reasonable force to remove a trespasser and if a statment of complaint is forthcoming from the owner of the house they can arrest the trespasser.

If the trespasser comes back again and again a log should be kept and a further statement made detailing each offence.

As for the owner of the property using force to remove the person, he would have to be able to show (presumably as the defendant in an assault case against him) that no more force than necessary was used. And that he pointed out to the person that they were trespassing and that he asked the said person to leave and they refused.

jhegarty

How much force would normally be found reasonable in a case like this ?

GilGrissom

I would imagine that nothing more than merely pushing the trespasser out onto the public road would be allowed.

Jo King

Note S11 of the Non fatal Offences against the person Act 1997

Demands for payment of debt causing alarm, etc.

11. —(1) A person who makes any demand for payment of a debt shall be guilty of an offence if—


( a ) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation, or


( b ) the person falsely represents that criminal proceedings lie for non-payment of the debt, or


( c ) the person falsely represents that he or she is authorised in some official capacity to enforce payment, or


( d ) the person utters a document falsely represented to have an official character.


(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500.


As for reasonable force look at what bouncers do in nightclubs. They are supposed to use reasonable force in ejecting persons whom they do not wish to be on the premises!

Our man in Havana

As for reasonable force look at what bouncers do in nightclubs. They are supposed to use reasonable force in ejecting persons whom they do not wish to be on the premises!

Judging by that simply pushing a person off the property would be considered reasonable.

Would a registered letter to the trespasser highlighting the point if he returns again he will be open to legal/garda action be of any use in this hypothetical situation?

faceman

Bond-007 wrote:

Hypothetical situation: A person knocks a door of a house and demands he speak to a person about a debt. Said person does not wish to speak to the person at the door. The person that owns the house asks the person to leave and he refuses and said he states that he would continue to call. At this point is the person trespassing?

What remedies are available to deal with such a situation. Is force allowed to remove a trespasser from private property.

depends on the reason for owing debt. If its a debt collector for e.g. a utility company and the collector realises he is wasting his time, the matter would be referred to a solicitor and no further face to face calls are necessary.

However its money owed outside of a contract (i.e. a casual civilian arrangement) then its a different matter altogether!

Jo King

The advantage of sending a registered letter is that there is proof of trespassing. An ejected trespasser may go to the guards and claim he was assaulted and that he was not asked to leave but simply set on when he called to discuss the debt. Self help remedies using force can be problematic and it is always best to ask the person to leave and then call the guards if they do not do so. It is also a good idea to photograph the person at the door and to record the conversation. Mobile phones are useful in this regard.

hullaballoo

You need to ask their permission to do so. In fact, in a case where there's some legal tension as it seems there is here, you would probably need to get permission in writing.

Secondly, 'reasonable force' is interpreted very blandly by the courts. Unfortunately, since most people brought up on charges of assault have the wherewithal to plead reasonable force, it has come to the stage where restraining someone who is attacking you is about all you can get away with on this defence.

It's obviously not the way it was initially intended, and to my knowledge, it's not the way it worked until relatively recently, but years of abuse by people who went around assaulting people and then claiming they were protecting someone, or their property, has led to this.

Finally, trespass is a tort, not a crime. If you want to prosecute a trespass, you get in touch with your solicitor, and instruct him to bring the proceedings. You don't just launch into trying to bail the person off your land. You'd get less money that way.

Jo King

Need permission to do what? If you have a trespasser who won't leave you call the guards to move them or move them yourself.It is done in nightclubs every night of the week. How many bouncers do you see being charged? Certain forms of trespass are criminal. Look at the public order act and the Housing temporary provisions act for examples.

Gobán Saor

hullaball&#250 wrote:

You need to ask their permission to do so.

I can't see why? Surely you are entitled to make an overt visual and audio recording of any encounter on your property. After all it's what CCTV cameras do as a matter of course, 24/7.

johnnyskeleton

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Secondly, 'reasonable force' is interpreted very blandly by the courts. Unfortunately, since most people brought up on charges of assault have the wherewithal to plead reasonable force, it has come to the stage where restraining someone who is attacking you is about all you can get away with on this defence.

It's obviously not the way it was initially intended, and to my knowledge, it's not the way it worked until relatively recently, but years of abuse by people who went around assaulting people and then claiming they were protecting someone, or their property, has led to this.

I disagree. It's not about getting away with it, it's about what is the appropriate amount of force in the circumstances, and this can vary quite a lot. In some circumstances no force is necessary (e.g. if you are a heavyweight boxer being attacked by a 4 year old girl) in others force above what is being used against you is reasonable. I wouldn't say that most people charged with assault can realistically argue self defence, but when it is it is a matter for the jury and as such generalisations as to how reasonable force is interpreted can be tricky.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Finally, trespass is a tort, not a crime. If you want to prosecute a trespass, you get in touch with your solicitor, and instruct him to bring the proceedings. You don't just launch into trying to bail the person off your land. You'd get less money that way.

s13 of the public order act 1994, and burglary are two crimes involving trespass. They both require a mental element; to cause fear or to commit an arrestable offence (which includes harrassment under the non fatal offences act).

There is implied consent for a person to enter onto someone else's driveway for the conduct of normal activity (e.g. delivering the post, calling by, or requesting that you pay your debts). However, this can be revoked and if they refuse to leave the property then they become a tresspasser.

Victor

Gob&#225 wrote: »

I can't see why? Surely you are entitled to make an overt visual and audio recording of any encounter on your property. After all it's what CCTV cameras do as a matter of course, 24/7.

This is why you see "CCTV is in use on these premises" notices. Entering the premises implies permission.

Jo King

Victor wrote:

This is why you see "CCTV is in use on these premises" notices. Entering the premises implies permission.

Is it? A lot of public places are filmed on cctv. A more likely reason is to deter people intent on causing trouble in the first place. It is complete and utter nonsense to say that nobody can be filmed or photographed unless they give permission.

hullaballoo

Do you ever hear any sound on CCTV footage? I wasn't talking about filming people.

In the above example, I was assuming that the term 'trespass' was being used in it's usual sense: a tort.

Jo King

Since when do you need permission to make a sound recording of a conversation? Haven't you seen hidden camera films being produced?
No matter what sense trespass you were talking about, there is the immediate problem of getting the trespasser off the land. What do you want the occupants of the house to do? Leave the trespasser standing there while they call a solicitor who then drafts an affidavit and brings another solicitor to the house to have it sworn and then makes a court application for a mandatory injunction to move the trespasser off the land? The solicitor then comes back and serves the trespasser( who has been standing at the door all this while) with a copy of the court order. It is of course assumed by all that the trespasser has the funds to pay costs and damages.
Get real!

Fey!

I had a situation a few years ago where a guy (Sean, for example) was visiting someone in my house when 2 brothers he owed money to, and the courts had ruled for against Sean appeared at my doorway insisting on talking to him. I ordered them off my property, and they told me that I did not have that right. When I got insistent, they rang the Gardai. The Gardai arrived and told me that I had no right to order these two guys off my property! I will add here that I had never had dealings with these two brothers, even though I knew them, and I wasnąt friendlz with "Sean". I just did not want hassle on my doorstep as I was new on the estate at the time.

This ended with one of the brothers assaulting me on the street about a week later, and I spoke to the Gardai about him. He then made a counter claim of assault against me. It was sorted by a non-garda third party who arranged a meeting between the two of us.

"Sean" went on to try and con a garage out of a car, costing the garage owner a lot of money, and not paying maintainence he owed. All this despite having a lot of money from an inheritance!!!

Fey!

Jo-king; CCTV may make image recordings, but not sound recordings. Sound recordings without consent may not, IIRC, be used in court.