Neighbour Trespassing

psychhead

Having recently put up dummy cameras at our house, we noted that our neighbours trespassed onto our property (all completely fenced off) and moved the camera. This had been facing onto a boundary area between properties. What are our rights in relation to this? Clearly no privacy was invaded given that it was a dummy camera but surely regardless of whether they knew this it would be an offence to interfere with cameras especially when they very clearly trespassed onto our property? We have of course no way to prove this of course as they were just that dummy cameras, however, it is very obvious that it was these individuals for other reasons that I won't get into here. Any way to avoid this in the future?

davo10

psychhead wrote: »

Having recently put up dummy cameras at our house, we noted that our neighbours trespassed onto our property (all completely fenced off) and moved the camera. This had been facing onto a boundary area between properties. What are our rights in relation to this? Clearly no privacy was invaded given that it was a dummy camera but surely regardless of whether they knew this it would be an offence to interfere with cameras especially when they very clearly trespassed onto our property? We have of course no way to prove this of course as they were just that dummy cameras, however, it is very obvious that it was these individuals for other reasons that I won't get into here. Any way to avoid this in the future?

If it's "facing onto a boundary area between properties", it is pointing onto their property, is that an invasion of their privacy?

Pat Mustard

davo10 wrote: »

If it's "facing onto a boundary area between properties", it is pointing onto their property, is that an invasion of their privacy?

They are dummy cameras.

davo10

The Mustard wrote: »

They are dummy cameras.

How does the neighbour know that? All they see is a camera pointed toward their property.

conorh91

Different but similar

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/9bd14182c49347be8025713300410c9c?OpenDocument

Atherton -v- Director of Public Prosecutions

Facts: Atherton cut his neighbour's hedge without his neighbour's permission and had caused damage to it. When questioned by AGS, Atherton blamed builders and landscapers. At that stage, the neighbour produced CCTV alleging to demonstrate Atherton cutting the hedge.

Issue:If CCTV evidence captures an accused person's private dwelling which can be seen from neighboring property, is the evidence obtained:

(i) in breach of any constitutional rights of the accused;
(ii) unlawful

Answer: No, and no.

Reasons: The front of the accused’s house was visible from the public road – perhaps only with the use of a ladder, but nonetheless visible.
There is no meaningful distinction between the evidence of what was happening in the form of video footage, and that very same evidence being given by the owner of the house. He would undoubtedly be permitted to give evidence viva voce of anything which he observed happening in the garden into which he was looking.

psychhead

davo10 wrote: »

How does the neighbour know that? All they see is a camera pointed toward their property.

To be fair its pretty obvious. At that it's literally just pointed over a 5 foot mud boundary which there is issues with, hence the camera. . There is a half acre garden between us which they dont use so im pretty sure they aren't concerned about privacy. Even so surely they have no right to interfere with it?

aisr1ofk43dpy5

If the camera is so obviously a dummy what's the point of it or am I missing something.

davo10

psychhead wrote: »

To be fair its pretty obvious. At that it's literally just pointed over a 5 foot mud boundary which there is issues with, hence the camera. . There is a half acre garden between us which they dont use so im pretty sure they aren't concerned about privacy. Even so surely they have no right to interfere with it?

Why put up a dummy camera if it's that obvious? If it's pointing in to their property, what difference does it make if it's into their garden or their house, is it not there to "record" them, as they see it?

Pat Mustard

davo10 wrote: »

is it not there to "record" them, as they see it?

No. It's not a camera and it can't record.

It's as much an invasion of privacy as a scarecrow in a field.

davo10

The Mustard wrote: »

No. It's not a camera and it can't record.

It's as much an invasion of privacy as a scarecrow in a field.

So, a camera that doesn't record, it's obvious it won't record, it's pointed at a contentious area, for no particular reason, it mysteriously moves but the OP doesn't know who moved it, because it doesn't record ya see, and he wants to know if this is trespassing, so who if anyone is trespassing/invading privacy, and how would OP know for sure, because the camera, well, doesn't record?

TheQuietFella

Maybe it's just me but why do you have them?
Are you having issues with neighbours or are you living in a rural area?

Pat Mustard

davo10 wrote: »

how would OP know for sure, because the camera, well, doesn't record?

The OP said that he put them up, so he should know.

Sam Kade

I just watched a UK program tonight about neighbours not agreeing, pretty much the same nonsense as this. Life's too short for this carry on

davo10

psychhead wrote: »

Having recently put up dummy cameras at our house, we noted that our neighbours trespassed onto our property (all completely fenced off) and moved the camera. ...............We have of course no way to prove this of course as they were just that dummy cameras,

This is my point The Mustard.

Victor

psychhead wrote: »

Any way to avoid this in the future?

Fit some real cameras. That don't look like cameras.

psychhead

The Mustard wrote: »

The OP said that he put them up, so he should know.

Having an issue with them hence the dummy camera. My issue is not re privacy, thats a whole other thread in itself. My q is whether or not its an offence to trespass on somebody elses property and interfere with a camera, dummy or not. House is rural, and was v clearly interfered with. I've no proof it was them of course otherwise I'd be gone to the gardai already. Let's just say nobody else would have motive and leave it at that.

jimmycrackcorm

Of course it is trespass but as you have no proof then what's the point of your question?

Pat Mustard

psychhead wrote: »

Having an issue with them hence the dummy camera. My issue is not re privacy, thats a whole other thread in itself. My q is whether or not its an offence to trespass on somebody elses property and interfere with a camera, dummy or not. House is rural, and was v clearly interfered with. I've no proof it was them of course otherwise I'd be gone to the gardai already. Let's just say nobody else would have motive and leave it at that.

I wasn't attempting to argue that there was a privacy issue at all.

As regards trespass, if a person trespasses onto the curtilage of a building to unlawfully interfere with property, then it could be an offence under s.11 of the Public Order Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0011.html#sec11

If that is the case, it could be reported to Gardai. If somebody came onto my property and went messing around, I'd contact Gardai.

Esel

If the dummy cameras have a flashing red light, I would remove the batteries. I don't think real cameras flash, could be wrong though.

Rubberchikken

Actual camera wouldn't cost too much and would be more useful.
Camera can record anything that is visible from where the person is standing.

Del2005

psychhead wrote: »

Having recently put up dummy cameras at our house, we noted that our neighbours trespassed onto our property (all completely fenced off) and moved the camera. This had been facing onto a boundary area between properties. What are our rights in relation to this? Clearly no privacy was invaded given that it was a dummy camera but surely regardless of whether they knew this it would be an offence to interfere with cameras especially when they very clearly trespassed onto our property? We have of course no way to prove this of course as they were just that dummy cameras, however, it is very obvious that it was these individuals for other reasons that I won't get into here. Any way to avoid this in the future?

Hide a real camera facing towards your house where the dummy camera is located. Then you'll have proof of who is interfering with the dummy camera and no privacy issues for the neighbours.

endacl

You should put up some dummy microphones too, so you can not record what they're not saying.

If you don't provide some context, OP, this discussion will likely remain as nonsensical as I suspect the reality to be.

Esel

endacl wrote: »

You should put up some dummy microphones too, so you can not record what they're not saying.

Nice advice.

endacl wrote: »

If you don't provide some context, OP, this discussion will likely remain as nonsensical as I suspect the reality to be.

Maybe I misread the OP posts, but I thought some context was given?

OP: If you really want to get into it, install some real, infrared cameras and record their input. Much cheaper than any future legal fees.

Better advice: Talk to them first (or again). Try to resolve the issue amicably. Don't mention the war.

Marcusm

The Mustard wrote: »

I wasn't attempting to argue that there was a privacy issue at all.

As regards trespass, if a person trespasses onto the curtilage of a building to unlawfully interfere with property, then it could be an offence under s.11 of the Public Order Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0011.html#sec11

If that is the case, it could be reported to Gardai. If somebody came onto my property and went messing around, I'd contact Gardai.

This could be a wonderful exam question; if the cameras weren't real does adjusting their purported live of sight constitute interfering with them. I would hope no one would expend public funds on investigating or prosecuting this.

Victor

Marcusm wrote: »

This could be a wonderful exam question; if the cameras weren't real does adjusting their purported live of sight constitute interfering with them. I would hope no one would expend public funds on investigating or prosecuting this.

There could be a harassment charge - either way.

Marcusm

Victor wrote: »

There could be a harassment charge - either way.

Hard to see that an isolated trespass by the neighbour on an occasion when the OP was not present could meet NF offences act harassment. The OP's installation of the camera might have raised ire but he was not repeatedly watching the neighbour.

Pat Mustard

Marcusm wrote: »

This could be a wonderful exam question; if the cameras weren't real does adjusting their purported live of sight constitute interfering with them. I would hope no one would expend public funds on investigating or prosecuting this.

Sure you can dust off your rules of statutory interpretation and find out!

Marcusm

The Mustard wrote: »

Sure you can dust off your rules of statutory interpretation and find out!

If it was that simple I wouldn't pay €900 per hour for legal advice.

Pat Mustard

Marcusm wrote: »

If it was that simple I wouldn't pay €900 per hour for legal advice.

If it was to ever become a district court criminal matter, the issue would be resolved for far less than that.

Marcusm

The Mustard wrote: »

If it was to ever become a district court criminal matter, the issue would be resolved for far less than that.

That I would believe but i doubt matters of construction are regularly raised in the DC nor would I expect a decision about whether adjusting the angle on a non functioning piece of plastic to be easily determined should actual resources be brought to bear. If its function is to act as a deterrent, is such function disturbed if the angle is adjusted in such a manner as not to render it a non deterrent. Is function relevant in determining whether there is interference. I doubt any of these points could easily be looked up in a rule book. They might however stimulate eager legal minds.

timetogo

Point the dummy cameras at the boundary again. Then get real cameras and point them at the dummy cameras.
Problem solved.

Or just don't have cameras (dummy or otherwise)that are pointing into your neighbours property.
Problem also solved.

Or show your neighbour that the cameras are dummy but from my reading from the posts the point of the dummy cameras is to antagonise the neighbour. That would solve the problem of your neighbour moving the camera. If somebody else moved it then the problem would still be there.

Pat Mustard

Marcusm wrote: »

That I would believe but i doubt matters of construction are regularly raised in the DC nor would I expect a decision about whether adjusting the angle on a non functioning piece of plastic to be easily determined should actual resources be brought to bear. If its function is to act as a deterrent, is such function disturbed if the angle is adjusted in such a manner as not to render it a non deterrent. Is function relevant in determining whether there is interference. I doubt any of these points could easily be looked up in a rule book. They might however stimulate eager legal minds.

Like that of a jaded District Judge with a headache and a huge list to get through.

Marcusm

The Mustard wrote: »

Like that of a jaded District Judge with a headache and a huge list to get through.

The eager legal minds would belong to thos students for whom I suggested this as a question topic; not a jaded judge sitting on a petty session. What need have they to interpret the law?

Victor

Marcusm wrote: »

Hard to see that an isolated trespass by the neighbour on an occasion when the OP was not present could meet NF offences act harassment. The OP's installation of the camera might have raised ire but he was not repeatedly watching the neighbour.

The dummy camera could be interpreted as antagonising and intimidating the neighbour.

Marcusm

Victor wrote: »

The dummy camera could be interpreted as antagonising and intimidating the neighbour.

That would not seem to amount to section10 harassment.