Trespass law (Merged with other)

Jon_d

I heard that if someone trespasses on to your property (thief scumbag etc) that once they're on your property you have legal right to take your own action!

Procrastastudy

Jon_d wrote: »

I heard that if someone trespasses on to your property (thief scumbag etc) that once they're on your property you have legal right to take your own action!

Such as?

You're perfectly entitled to shout "Ahoy there young rapscallion leave my land at once"

Shooting them in the face would be different.

NoQuarter

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Shooting them in the face would be different.

Unless they were ugly.

Jon_d

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Such as?

You're perfectly entitled to shout "Ahoy there young rapscallion leave my land at once"

Shooting them in the face would be different.

kicking this **** out of them or shooting them in the patella (knee cap) or ankle!

Pat Mustard

Jon_d wrote: »

kicking this **** out of them or shooting them in the patella (knee cap) or ankle!

Nope. Illegal for now. But when Mick the Bull Daly is you get elected, he'll you can pass that law, good and proper like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCt787qneQw

Strawberry Fields

Jon_d wrote: »

kicking this **** out of them or shooting them in the patella (knee cap) or ankle!

If they were merely recreationally passing through your lands to admire the scenery or the architecture of your buildings they could in fact sue you for taking such a course of action in which case it would not be advised.

If Fat Freddy popped in to make you pay up it may be different if you were acting in self defence.

Jon_d

yeah what i mean as in if someone come to act the Bo&&ocks

NoQuarter

Jon_d wrote: »

yeah what i mean as in if someone come to act the Bo&&ocks

The law is that anything you do has to be reasonable. It will be a jury who decides what reasonable is. So if someone is on your land and calls ya an eejit and ya box their head in, good luck to ya, youll need it.

But if someone is on your land with a knife, you have your family upstairs and he is trying to break into the house or something like that, and you shoot them, you may be ok. But its a matter for a jury.

The law simply says any force you use must be "reasonable". Thats as far as it goes. That is the law on self defence by the way, which is the only time you can attack/hit/shoot/whatever someone. If someone is pulling up your plant pots and you smack them, you may be in trouble.

Jon_d

that's grand, sound

Pat Mustard

NoQuarter wrote: »

The law is that anything you do has to be reasonable. It will be a jury who decides what reasonable is. So if someone is on your land and calls ya an eejit and ya box their head in, good luck to ya, youll need it.

But if someone is on your land with a knife, you have your family upstairs and he is trying to break into the house or something like that, and you shoot them, you may be ok. But its a matter for a jury.

The law simply says any force you use must be "reasonable". Thats as far as it goes. That is the law on self defence by the way, which is the only time you can attack/hit/shoot/whatever someone. If someone is pulling up your plant pots and you smack them, you may be in trouble.

Could you take a look at my post from the self-defence thread (now reposted here) and give me your opinion?

What is your opinion on this from the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011?:

Quote:
s.2(4) It is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held but in considering whether the person using the force honestly held the belief, the court or the jury, as the case may be, shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the person so believing and all other relevant circumstances.

Given a home invasion situation, if a householder (fearing for his life) kills an intruder with an honestly held but unreasonable belief - but with certain reasonable grounds and certain excusing circumstances.

It looks like the legislation is framed to provide a full defence to a homicide charge in that particular situation. Is that correct?

NoQuarter

Yes, the legislation does provide for that.

I dont understand how the belief would be "unreasonable" and then you say there are certain reasonable grounds and certain circumstances. If there are certain reasonable grounds, it may well add up to a reasonable belief. So there is a bit of a contradiction there but I would have to hear the full facts to first.

Either way, its for a jury to decide. All I know is that if I was on a jury and the case before me was a burglar or whatever breaking on to somones property, where the burglar was armed of dangerous, I could and would look past the law and use my position to make sure there is precedent for people to be acquitted in such circumstances. Its important not to give criminals legal protection if they enter someones home. That said, its not reasonable to shoot someone for taking a short-cut through your garden etc etc

Also, check out DPP v. Nally which was an important case in paving the way for this legislation: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/special/2006/nally_judgment/index.pdf

Kevin3

Sorry to dig up an old thread but I didn't think there was much point creating a new one.

Trespass on land is a civil offence. Does Section 18 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 give a person power to use reasonable force to remove a person trespassing on their land (e.g. farmer removing someone they told to leave their land)? Does the same section allow Gardaí to assist in the removal of a trespasser on land?

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

(a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or

(b) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or

(c) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or

(d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

(e) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

(2) “use of force” in subsection (1) is defined and extended by section 20 .

(3) For the purposes of this section an act is ‘criminal’ notwithstanding that the person doing the act—

(a) if charged with an offence in respect of it, would be acquitted on the ground that—

(i) he or she acted under duress,

(ii) his or her act was involuntary,

(iii) he or she was in a state of intoxication, or

(iv) he or she was insane so as not to be responsible according to law for the act,

or

(b) was a person to whom section 52 (1) of the Children Act 2001 applied.

(4) The references in subsection (1) to protecting a person and property from anything include protecting the person or property from its continuing; and the reference to preventing crime or a breach of the peace shall be similarly construed.

(5) For the purposes of this section the question whether the act against which force is used is of a kind mentioned in any of the paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) shall be determined according to the circumstances as the person using the force believes them to be.

(6) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person who believes circumstances to exist which would justify or excuse the use of force under that subsection has no defence if he or she knows that the force is used against a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of the member's duty or a person so assisting such member, unless he or she believes the force to be immediately necessary to prevent harm to himself or herself or another.

(7) The defence provided by this section does not apply to a person who causes conduct or a state of affairs with a view to using force to resist or terminate it:

But the defence may apply although the occasion for the use of force arises only because the person does something he or she may lawfully do, knowing that such an occasion will arise.

(8) Property shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) (c) and (d) as belonging to any person—

(a) having the custody or control of it;

(b) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or

(c) having a charge on it;

and where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be treated as including any person having a right to enforce the trust.

Property of a corporation sole shall be treated for the purposes of the aforesaid provisions as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.

(9) In subsection (3) ‘intoxication’ means being under the intoxicating influence of any alcoholic drink, drug, solvent or any other substance or combination of substances.

The Castle King

Is it an offence to enter someones property without the owners consent in persuit of an assailant who had just attacked my vehicle knowing that the assailant was on the grounds of the property?