No trespassing signs

Snugglebunnies

Just out of general interest, if someone puts a no trespassing sign at the entrance to their house (front gate or whatever), can people still enter the property and knock on their front door?

Do the signs have any legal basis or by putting up the sign are you just stating a preference for people not to enter your property uninvited?

fepper

If its private property you have no right to enter anyway,the sign is to remind you of that fact

Snugglebunnies

So anyone who knocks on your door is trespassing and is breaking the law? Surely there must be exemptions, such as postmen etc?

fepper

Trespassing is going into a property with no real purpose to be there unlike a postman or deliveries that have, so if you went in and knocked on the door it would be as maybe someone looking for directions,visiting relatives etc not just standing around their property staring up at the sky

Snugglebunnies

fepper wrote:

Trespassing is going into a property with no real purpose to be there unlike a postman or deliveries that have, so if you went in and knocked on the door it would be as maybe someone looking for directions,visiting relatives etc not just standing around their property staring up at the sky

So anyone can enter a property as long as they feel they have a reason to be there? What about walking on a farmers land? You have a purpose for being there but is that not trespassing?

fepper

You can also go into a house with the purpose of committing a robbery as well but its still trespass to the House owner so what purpose would you think you bring to the farmer by walking his land unlike a postman who brings him his letters and deliveries when he ordered goods,he doesn't have to provide for your personal purposes

Snugglebunnies

fepper wrote:

You can also go into a house with the purpose of committing a robbery as well but its still trespass to the House owner so what purpose would you think you bring to the farmer by walking his land unlike a postman who brings him his letters and deliveries when he ordered goods,he doesn't have to provide for your personal purposes

So its not trespass as long as they are providing something to the home owner?
What about door to door salesmen or Jehovah's witnesses etc.? Most people don't want them turning up at the door, they are not providing anything in your view, that would warrant them to be on your property.

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just genuinely curious as to when its OK for someone to enter your property and when its not. Do they have to be there to do something that's of benefit to the property owner?

The topic just came up in conversation at work is all!

Victor

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

So anyone can enter a property as long as they feel they have a reason to be there? What about walking on a farmers land? You have a purpose for being there but is that not trespassing?

Perhaps better phrased as "Anyone can enter a property as long as they have a bona fide reason to be there." - this will vary with the parties and the circumstances will vary.

There is an implied invitation (I'm not sure if I'm phrasing that correctly) to walk up a front path and knock on the door. That is, unless the gate is locked and/or there is a "keep out" sign.

Snugglebunnies

Victor wrote:

There is an implied invitation (I'm not sure if I'm phrasing that correctly) to walk up a front path and knock on the door. That is, unless the gate is locked and/or there is a "keep out" sign.

So if someone has a locked gate with a keep out or no trespassing sign, can someone enter if they believe they have a genuine reason to be in there?

fepper

I've never seen no trespassers sign at private houses in general anyway,it seems to be businesses, farms and its more of a warning that the owner feels that for your own safety it's a working environment, sometimes the home residence can be in close proximity so the same sign is there to inform you

ED E

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

So if someone has a locked gate with a keep out or no trespassing sign, can someone enter if they believe they have a genuine reason to be in there?

If you search this has been done to death.


There's no hard and fast line, each set of circumstances would be evaluated in an eventual case were it to arise.

Victor

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

So if someone has a locked gate with a keep out or no trespassing sign, can someone enter if they believe they have a genuine reason to be in there?

No, it has to be better than that. It is not what the visitor thinks, but what a reasonable person would think in the circumstancecs.

If it's a salesman, who through his own self-importance thinks that they can ignore the sign because the resident should buy his product, that wouldn't be good enough.

On the other end of the scale, if the property is on fire and the fire brigade uses force to gain entry, that would be a good enough reason (not least that the fire brigade has a statutory right to enter to fight the fire).

In between, you might have the resident's best mate who regularly calls to the house, might be considered to have a bona fide understanding that the sign doesn't apply to them.

Note that trespass, by itself, is not a criminal offence. However, going beyond a locked gate would likely prejudice someone's case if it came to it.

fepper

A no trespassing sign into a private house would nearly guarantee you a frosty reception at the door anyway and you could be leaving faster than you were going in...

Samuel T. Cogley

Tangentially related and instructive on the attitude to trespassers.

Occupiers Liability Act

GM228

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

So anyone who knocks on your door is trespassing and is breaking the law?

First thing people need to understand is that trespassing in itself is not a crime (with a few exceptions such as at airports and railways) and does not equate to "breaking the law".

fepper

GM228 wrote: »

First thing people need to understand is that trespassing in itself is not a crime (with a few exceptions such as at airports and railways) and does not equate to "breaking the law".

So I can trespass onto any private property of my neighbours at any time,look up at the sky in their lawn for five minutes and leave,so what other option does the property owner have to stop this, other than tell the person to get out

Snugglebunnies

fepper wrote:

A no trespassing sign into a private house would nearly guarantee you a frosty reception at the door anyway and you could be leaving faster than you were going in...

Ya I suppose you would be! A colleague of mine was just talking about an elderly relative of his who has been duped into buying things she doesn't need off salesmen calling to her door. He said he was going to put up one of these signs to stop them coming in, I was sure if that would stop them to be honest.

Samuel T. Cogley

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Ya I suppose you would be! A colleague of mine was just talking about an elderly relative of his who has been duped into buying things she doesn't need off salesmen calling to her door. He said he was going to put up one of these signs to stop them coming in, I was sure if that would stop them to be honest.

While trespass is not illegal harassment is. A sign saying no sales people, and then one calling, and then being told no and then persisting or airtricity sorry I mean an unnamed company doing it is arguably harassment and the guards should be called.

TBH it about time door to door was put a stop too.

GM228

fepper wrote: »

So I can trespass onto any private property of my neighbours at any time,look up at the sky in their lawn for five minutes and leave,so what other option does the property owner have to stop this, other than tell the person to get out

The reality is there isn't much you can do as trespass in itself is a civil issue - the recourse is to apply for injunctive relief.

What is intended as a result of the trespass is what is important otherwise to determine if there is a criminal issue, for example if someone unlawfully enters a premises with the intention of commiting an arrestable offence then it's an offence of burglary, or if the trespass is done in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another person then it's an offence.

by8auj6csd3ioq

Would you be loitering if you went into someone's garden and spent 5 minutes looking at the sky? In any case it would seem reasonable you would be acting in a way which would cause worry to the owner/suspicious activity and they would probably be entitled to call the gardai.

If you then persisted in looking at the sky when the gardai said the owner did not want you there would that be an offence? Public order? Not in public place?

Victor

Magnolia Spoiled Whisk wrote: »

If you then persisted in looking at the sky when the gardai said the owner did not want you there would that be an offence? Public order? Not in public place?

That may depend - a front garden may be a public place - you can't shout abuse at passersby from your garden and claim "Ah, I'm not in a public place".


The act doesn't quite seem to agree with me. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/3/enacted/en/html#sec3

3.—In this Part, except where the context otherwise requires—

“dwelling” includes a building, vehicle or vessel ordinarily used for habitation;

“private place” means a place that is not a public place;

“public place” includes—

(a) any highway,

(b) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,

(c) any cemetery or churchyard,

(d) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and

(e) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.

Professor Moriarty

fepper wrote: »

So I can trespass onto any private property of my neighbours at any time,look up at the sky in their lawn for five minutes and leave,so what other option does the property owner have to stop this, other than tell the person to get out

Technically, you can do this. However, they are perfectly entitled to water their lawn as you do so.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

As some might be aware, Panda Waste are looking to change customer contracts this week. The new contract includes a clause to allow staff to enter your property to check on their bins.
Would this be considered trespassing?

Victor

Journey Gigantic Pearl wrote: »

As some might be aware, Panda Waste are looking to change customer contracts this week. The new contract includes a clause to allow staff to enter your property to check on their bins.
Would this be considered trespassing?

Well, do you want your rubbish collected?

You have a contract with them. If you disagree, change provider.

Cakes and Ale

Seeing as you don't own the bins, doesn't this make it more like a meter reader calling (in that presumably you don't own meters either)?

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

No I would prefer my rubbish not to be collected. :rolleyes: Mod deletion. Pls be civil

Since when are bins collected from the side of your house? The bin collectors will not collect your bin unless it's outside.

The new clause is not being added to collect your bins, it's to inspect the contents of your bins.

You're correct that I have a contract. The current contract. Do you believe it's acceptable for a service provider to give one week notice for a change in contact?

Like most of Fingal, we have only one waste collection company, Panda Green. So changing to another provider is not possible.

Victor wrote: »

Well, do you want your rubbish collected?

You have a contract with them. If you disagree, change provider.

Victor

Journey Gigantic Pearl wrote: »

Since when are bins collected from the side of your house? The bin collectors will not collect your bin unless it's outside.

Actually, no. My bin collector comes in, checks which bins have material in them and only takes those ones.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Your waste collection company goes to the side of your house on collection day to check your bins and they decide when to lift your bins? Are joking me? What waste company is that do you mind me asking?
Unless you're one of the lucky few to have a provider with an unlimited lift service. Most people pay per lift or by weight, or both.

9.05EUR a lift from Panda. Sure, I should let them collect it every week!? Twice a week in fact!

Most waste collectors ask you to leave the bins outside so they know you would like your bin lifted, but also to speed up the waste collection process.

When pay by weight comes in, will you let your waste provider lift your bins whenever they would like?

To get back to my original question. I'll make it more generic, can any service provider enter your property as long as it's in your contract?

Victor wrote: »

Actually, no. My bin collector comes in, checks which bins have material in them and only takes those ones.

GM228

Magnolia Spoiled Whisk wrote: »

Would you be loitering if you went into someone's garden and spent 5 minutes looking at the sky?

Loitering or not, again just like trespassing there is no crime of loitering in Ireland, whilst Gardaí can direct someone to move when loitering (in certain circumstances - it still isn't a crime though) it does not apply to private property which isn't a public place.

Magnolia Spoiled Whisk wrote: »

In any case it would seem reasonable you would be acting in a way which would cause worry to the owner/suspicious activity and they would probably be entitled to call the gardai.

Again what could the Gardaí do? For so called criminal trespass to apply someone would have to be acting in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in someone. Simply standing in a garden looking into the sky would probably not be considered an act causing fear by the reasonable person.

Magnolia Spoiled Whisk wrote: »

If you then persisted in looking at the sky when the gardai said the owner did not want you there would that be an offence? Public order? Not in public place?

No.

P. Breathnach

GM228 wrote: »

... For so called criminal trespass to apply someone would have to be acting in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in someone. Simply standing in a garden looking into the sky would probably not be considered an act causing fear by the reasonable person....

In some circumstances, I am fearful of people who behave in a bizarre way. I would be concerned if somebody entered my garden and stood there, looking at the sky.

I might ask them to explain what they are doing, and if I was not given an acceptable explanation. would probably tell them to leave. If they remained, I think I would be entitled to ask the Gardao assist me deal with the situation as a criminal trespass.

Snugglebunnies

GM228 wrote:

Again what could the Gardaí do? For so called criminal trespass to apply someone would have to be acting in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in someone. Simply standing in a garden looking into the sky would probably not be considered an act causing fear by the reasonable person.

So they would have to be causing a rational fear so to speak? Surely a home owner can decide whether someone on their property is causing them fear or not regardless of at appears to be rational or not to a third party?

by8auj6csd3ioq

is the fear a crime if the skylooker means to cause it or if the householder subjectively feels it?

Peregrinus

Somebody hanging around in your garden, refusing to account for their presence there and refusing to leave when asked might reasonably cause you fear. And, if they have no reasonable excuse for doing this, that's an offence.

But I think the refusal to give an explanation and/or the refusal to leave, or something of that kind, would be essential elements. If you look out your window and see someone in your garden, that it itself is not evidence of an offence. There are a score of non-fear-inducing reasons why he might be there - he's approaching the front door to ring the bell, he's recovering a child's ball, he's lost, he's a dementia sufferer, his eye was caught by your splendid ribes glossularia and he stepped in to admire it at close quarters. None of these are reasons for fear.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

his eye was caught by your splendid ribes glossularia

Public liability hazard there!

123shooter

GM228 wrote: »

First thing people need to understand is that trespassing in itself is not a crime (with a few exceptions such as at airports and railways) and does not equate to "breaking the law".

I thought there was a law such as 'criminal tresspass' where if people enter a property without permission (say a farmers field with a caravan) then the gards will use their powers to remove or even arrest.

Is this correct?

Peregrinus

No, it isn't.

Simply being on someone else's property without their permission is not an offence. It may be an element of an offence, but there will need to be other elements before the offence is committed.

For example, it's an offence to trespass on "any building or the curtilage thereof in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another person" (Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 s. 13). The additional elements needed to transform simple trespass into that offence are (a) the place where you trespass has to be a building or its curtilage (so you can't commit this offence in, say, a field) and (b) you need to have a threatening manner.

Or, under s. 11 of the same Act, it's an offence to enter a building or its curtilage as a trespasser "in circumstances giving rise to the reasonable inference that such entry or presence was with intent to commit an offence or with intent to unlawfully interfere with any property situate therein". So if you enter a building without permission while wearing a stripey jumper and facemask, and carrying a black bag marked "swag", that's an offence.

The police power that you're thinking of is connected to the s. 13 "threatening manner" offence. If a garda finds you in a building or its curtilage and suspects with reasonable cause that you are doing what s. 13 forbids, then he may direct you to stop acting in a threatening manner, or to leave the place in a peaceable and orderly way. And if you fail to do as directed, that's itself an offence for which you can be arrested, even if it turns out that you weren't committing the s. 13 offence.

123shooter

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it isn't.

Simply being on someone else's property without their permission is not an offence. It may be an element of an offence, but there will need to be other elements before the offence is committed.

For example, it's an offence to trespass on "any building or the curtilage thereof in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another person" (Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 s. 13). The additional elements needed to transform simple trespass into that offence are (a) the place where you trespass has to be a building or its curtilage (so you can't commit this offence in, say, a field) and (b) you need to have a threatening manner.

Or, under s. 11 of the same Act, it's an offence to enter a building or its curtilage as a trespasser "in circumstances giving rise to the reasonable inference that such entry or presence was with intent to commit an offence or with intent to unlawfully interfere with any property situate therein". So if you enter a building without permission while wearing a stripey jumper and facemask, and carrying a black bag marked "swag", that's an offence.

The police power that you're thinking of is connected to the s. 13 "threatening manner" offence. If a garda finds you in a building or its curtilage and suspects with reasonable cause that you are doing what s. 13 forbids, then he may direct you to stop acting in a threatening manner, or to leave the place in a peaceable and orderly way. And if you fail to do as directed, that's itself an offence for which you can be arrested, even if it turns out that you weren't committing the s. 13 offence.

I see but if I were a farmer and people drove vehicles over my grass or trampled it down I would have said they are damaging my property because the grass isn't fit to be eaten by livestock. So is that not fair point to make the unauthorised entry criminal by criminal damage?

4ensic15

The most relevant provision os Sectio 19 of the Housing Miscellaneous provisions Act 2002. Someone rentering land and refusing to leave at the request of the owner would most likely be committing an offence under that provision.

123shooter

4ensic15 wrote: »

The most relevant provision os Sectio 19 of the Housing Miscellaneous provisions Act 2002. Someone rentering land and refusing to leave at the request of the owner would most likely be committing an offence under that provision.

Well doesn't that make it an offence then?

Farmer

---

Oi you get off my land.

Joe public

---

Feck off.

Gard

---

Your nicked !

Bit confusing don't you think ?

Peregrinus

S. 19 of the Housing (Misc. Provisions) Act 2002 amends the National Treasury Management Agency Act 1990. It has nothing to do with trespass or offences.

However, s. 24 of the 2002 Act amends the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 by inserting a number of new sections, and one of these is s. 19C. Under that section it's an offence to enter and occupy land without the owner's consent, where doing so substantially damages the land, or substantially affects the amenity of the land, or prevents those entitled from using the land, etc, etc.

Again, much more than simple trespass is needed. You have to actually occupy the land, which involves more than simply entering onto the land, and your occupation has to have the stated consequences of damaging the land, preventing use, etc.

On edit: the offence doesn't require that the owner requests you to leave. It's enough that you entered without his "duly given consent".

123shooter

Peregrinus wrote: »

However, s. 24 of the 2002 Act amends the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 by inserting a number of new sections, and one of these is s. 19C. Under that section it's an offence to enter and occupy land without the owner's consent, where doing so substantially damages the land, or substantially affects the amenity of the land, or prevents those entitled from using the land, etc, etc.

Again, much more than simple trespass is needed. You have to actually occupy the land, which involves more than simply entering onto the land, and your occupation has to have the stated consequences of damaging the land, preventing use, etc.

But as I said earlier

---

I see but if I were a farmer and people drove vehicles over my grass or trampled it down I would have said they are damaging my property because the grass isn't fit to be eaten by livestock. So is that not fair point to make the unauthorised entry criminal by criminal damage?

So a farmers grass crop his property doesn't count then unless they start cooking and get the deck chairs out?

Peregrinus

Depends. If they're trampling the crops, obviously that's damage. But if you have a field under grass and I walk across it once, does that count as "substantial damage" to the land, which is what the offence requires? I'd say not. Farmers walk across their own paddocks all the time, which they'd hardly do if it degraded the grazing to any material extent.

I'm not saying that it's legal for someone to be in your field without your permission; I'm saying that it's not (in itself) a crime. Trespass is a civil wrong, and you have civil remedies. Just don't expect the guards to come along and sort out the rights and wrongs of a dispute between you and someone else about who has the superior right to use/occupy/be in the field unless some actual offence is being committed. "He's walking on the grass!" is probably not going to cut the mustard.

123shooter

Peregrinus wrote: »

Depends. If they're trampling the crops, obviously that's damage. But if you have a field under grass and I walk across it once, does that count as "substantial damage" to the land, which is what the offence requires? I'd say not. Farmers walk across their own paddocks all the time, which they'd hardly do if it degraded the grazing to any material extent.

I'm not saying that it's legal for someone to be in your field without your permission; I'm saying that it's not (in itself) a crime. Trespass is a civil wrong, and you have civil remedies. Just don't expect the guards to come along and sort out the rights and wrongs of a dispute between you and someone else about who has the superior right to use/occupy/be in the field unless some actual offence is being committed. "He's walking on the grass!" is probably not going to cut the mustard.

I can't believe you have said that. Are you implying that a farmers field is inferior to your living room or back garden?

As regards grass or other. Grass doesn't just grow and is as much a crop as spuds or anything. Whether a farmer walks or damages his own property is his own affair and not an excuse for anybody else to come along and do same because they think it's fun. You may spill a little coffee on your living room carpet, is it ok for everyone else to come in and do same?

Peregrinus

123shooter wrote: »

I can't believe you have said that. Are you implying that a farmers field is inferior to your living room or back garden?

Not "inferior", just differently treated in law. The offences in s. 11 and 13 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 can only be committed in a building or the curtilage of a building; it says so right there in those two sections. The s. 19C offence can be committed on any land, but it requires "serious damage" (or other specified consequences) to the land.

123shooter wrote: »

As regards grass or other. Grass doesn't just grow and is as much a crop as spuds or anything. Whether a farmer walks or damages his own property is his own affair and not an excuse for anybody else to come along and do same because they think it's fun. You may spill a little coffee on your living room carpet, is it ok for everyone else to come in and do same?

The question is not whether it's OK for some to walk on the grass; the question is whether it's a crime. And the answer will depend on whether walking on the grass will "substantially damage" the land, or have any of the other consequences required for the s. 13 offence.

123shooter

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not "inferior", just differently treated in law. The offences in s. 11 and 13 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 can only be committed in a building or the curtilage of a building; it says so right there in those two sections. The s. 19C offence can be committed on any land, but it requires "serious damage" (or other specified consequences) to the land.


The question is not whether it's OK for some to walk on the grass; the question is whether it's a crime. And the answer will depend on whether walking on the grass will "substantially damage" the land, or have any of the other consequences required for the s. 13 offence.

The land and the grass are two different things like the house and it's furnishings.

The land I understand unless it is dug up or tyre tracks, but if grass is trampled by feet or tyres then it can not be harvested or the livestock will not eat it.

So surely property is made unusable to the owner and he is at loss no matter how small monetarily.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

S. 19 of the Housing (Misc. Provisions) Act 2002 amends the National Treasury Management Agency Act 1990. It has nothing to do with trespass or offences.

However, s. 24 of the 2002 Act amends the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 by inserting a number of new sections, and one of these is s. 19C. Under that section it's an offence to enter and occupy land without the owner's consent, where doing so substantially damages the land, or substantially affects the amenity of the land, or prevents those entitled from using the land, etc, etc.

Again, much more than simple trespass is needed. You have to actually occupy the land, which involves more than simply entering onto the land, and your occupation has to have the stated consequences of damaging the land, preventing use, etc.

On edit: the offence doesn't require that the owner requests you to leave. It's enough that you entered without his "duly given consent".

Entering onto land and refusing to leave when asked is occupation. It is also affecting the amenity of the land. In any even if a householder asks a person to leave and that person refuses the householder is entitled to use reasonable forece to remove tha trespasser. If the guards are called they will intervene to prevent a breach of the peace, rather than apprehend an offender.

Peregrinus

123shooter wrote: »

The land and the grass are two different things like the house and it's furnishings.

Growing crops are part of the land. So damage to the growing crop counts as damage to the land.

123shooter wrote: »

The land I understand unless it is dug up or tyre tracks, but if grass is trampled by feet or tyres then it can not be harvested or the livestock will not eat it.

So surely property is made unusable to the owner and he is at loss no matter how small monetarily.

Yes, he's at loss, but a small loss isn't enough to constitute the offence. The offence requires substantial damage to the land.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

Entering onto land and refusing to leave when asked is occupation. It is also affecting the amenity of the land. In any even if a householder asks a person to leave and that person refuses the householder is entitled to use reasonable forece to remove tha trespasser. If the guards are called they will intervene to prevent a breach of the peace, rather than apprehend an offender.

Generally if the guards are called their preferred solution is that the trespasser leaves, which is usually also the preferred solution of the landowner. Both the s. 13 offence and the s. 19C offence have a supplementary power for the guards, if they "reasonably suspect" that the offence has been or is being committed, to direct the trespasser to leave, and if he refuses they'll arrest and charge him for the offence of failing to comply with the direction, of which the proof is fairly straightforward. The question of whether he actually committed the s.13/s. 19C offence won't be before the court; just the question of whether the guards' suspicion that he did so or was likely to do so was reasonable.

On edit: Just to add - if the guards see their primary role as preventing a breach of the peace, then it's the landowner's behaviour that they are seeking to control, not the trespasser's. Being on the land without permission is not a breach of the peace; the landowner's attempts to remove the trespasser, if they go beyond "reasonable force", will be, as might the trespasser's attempts to resist removal. So what the guards want is for the confrontation not to become physical, and it's typically the landownwer who will be initiating physical confrontation. Hence a police approach that focuses on avoiding a breach of the peace is typically not to a landowner's taste.

Which I think is the whole thinking behind the police powers in sections 13 and 19C. It give the police the power they would like, which is the power to defuse the confrontation by telling the trespasser to leave (and to arrest him if he refuses). But they only have that power if they "reasonably suspect" that one of the offences is being committed. If the alleged trespasser asserts that he's not a trespasser at all; he has a right to be there, or if he asserts that he's not behaving in a threatening manner or causing substantial damage or whatever (and the guards haven't actually observed him doing this) it's difficult for them to form the "reasonable suspicion" that is required before they can give a direction to leave.

123shooter

Peregrinus wrote: »

Growing crops are part of the land. So damage to the growing crop counts as damage to the land.


Yes, he's at loss, but a small loss isn't enough to constitute the offence. The offence requires substantial damage to the land.

Who decides that?

So in effect I can come in to your garden, trash the hell out of it then wait for someone to say. 'Ok that's substantial' before the gards come and chuck me in a cell?

Peregrinus

123shooter wrote: »

Who decides that?

The court, at the trial.

123shooter wrote: »

So in effect I can come in to your garden, trash the hell out of it then wait for someone to say. 'Ok that's substantial' before the gards come and chuck me in a cell?

This is a feature, not a bug. The guards don't want to be bothered with arresting people for walking on your grass, or wearing down the paving on your footpath, or whatever trivial damage you are able to point to. The taxpayers don't want to be put to the expense of trying them and housing them in Mountjoy, either. If they're not doing substantial damage (or any of the other consequences mentioned in s. 19C) then their presence on your land is not seen as a societal problem of a scale that requires the creation of a criminal offence and the attention of the guards, the courts and the prison service.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

Entering onto land and refusing to leave when asked is occupation. It is also affecting the amenity of the land. In any even if a householder asks a person to leave and that person refuses the householder is entitled to use reasonable forece to remove tha trespasser. If the guards are called they will intervene to prevent a breach of the peace, rather than apprehend an offender.

I think you are getting confused with the old common law "Castle Doctrine" which allows force to be used to defend property, not to evict a trespasser.

The degree of force used would have to be proportonate to the threat, what degree of force could be proportonate to say an ordinary trespasser where no offence is committed? The answer is no force.