Trespassers will be prosecuted

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Are these signs meaningless? I thought trespassing was a tort and not a criminal matter (unless there is clear intention of damage or theft then it becomes criminal).

The owner cannot decide if a prosecution happens, even the Gardaí. The DPP decide.

At what stage is it decided and who decides if the trespass is criminal or a simple tort?

hullaballoo

Prosecution is not a term exclusive to criminal suit.

A plaintiff in a civil action is said to prosecute their case.

De meeja tend to only use it in relation to criminal matters but that's their business and certainly has less than zero legal significance.

But in terms of these signs, they, like most signs, are all but meaningless from a legal perspective. The obvious exception being Road Traffic signs, which do have some legal clout.

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Thanks. Interesting.

Can you be prosecuted civilly and criminally at the same time for the same crime?
I was outside a certain well known discount shop recently and the sign on the window informed potential shoplifters that in addition to initiating criminal charges they'll also initiate civil proceedings against shoplifters simultaneously. This shop in Ireland is a child of a larger UK parent branch by a different name.

Potential-Monke

First, you're an Alestorm fan?

Secondly, the cases would be different. Criminal cases, in my experience, only go for the prosecution for the act but rarely (if ever, I've never heard of it) issue an order for compensation (not to be confused with a donation to the court poor box/charity), so a shop would have the criminal proceedings to prosecute for the theft, but would then have to bring a civil case to recover the cost of the stolen items (please correct me if i'm wrong). But it wouldn't really happen as the theft amount in these places is usually quite low and not worth the cost of chasing.

It's probably just another attempt to deter the criminal element from stealing there, because the law doesn't seem to be doing a good enough job by itself (and the law is lacking in the area of proper enforcement and lack of prison spaces, but that's another thread).

Peregrinus

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

Thanks. Interesting.

Can you be prosecuted civilly and criminally at the same time for the same crime?

Yes, you can.

But it doesn't normally happen at the same time. Usually the person with the civil claim will wait until the criminal proceedings have been concluded, if only because it's much easier for me to prove that you owe me for goods you took from me if you have already been convicted of taking those goods from me.

Claw Hammer

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

Can you be prosecuted civilly and criminally at the same time for the same crime?

A crime can also involve a civil wrong such as a tort or trespass. it is ery common to have both in a Road traffic incident. When there is a road traffic incident ,driving by one or more of the participants may involve a crime such a dangerous driving. If damage is caused there may be a claim in negligence arising fom the incident. The DPP will bring charges in the criminal courts and the injured party will sue in the civil courts.

ganmo

The hardest thing about prosecuting tresspasser is getting their name and address

Peregrinus

ganmo wrote: »

The hardest thing about prosecuting tresspasser is getting their name and address

Not necessarily; very often a trespasser is someone known to the landowner, and the trespass arises in the context of a property dispute or a neighbourhood dispute.

The harding thing about suing a trespasser is proving that he has caused you any damage, without which you won't recover more than token damages.

Here in the real world, signs that say "trespassers will be prosecuted" could, semantically, mean that the landowner will bring civil proceedings someone who trespasses on the property. But they never do mean that.

Can someone just walk into your garden and stare through your window, or is this just farmland?

If not, and someone is a big landowner can they cordon off a few acres and say it's part of their property - lawns, gardens etc?

Just curious.... I'm poor and own no land

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone just walk into your garden and stare through your window, or is this just farmland?

If not, and someone is a big landowner can they cordon off a few acres and say it's part of their property - lawns, gardens etc?

Just curious.... I'm poor and own no land

The deal is that me simply being on your land without your permission is not, in itself, a crime. But, where other facts are also established, it may be a crime.

You mention gardens. The fact that land is your garden is not enough to make my presence there a crime. But it's "an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to trespass on any building or the curtilage thereof in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another person". So if I'm in your garden, and I don't have a reasonable excuse, and I'm behaving in a way that causes you fear (peering in your window would probably count) yeah, that's an offence.

The size of the garden isn't really an issue here but, the larger the garden, the harder is it is to claim that someone's presence in it will cause fear. If I've got four acres of lawns, trees, shrub and fishponds attached to my commodious suburban villa, and you've climbed over the wall fifty yards from the house to gather conkers, that's not really behaviour that could reasonably cause me fear. Similarly if you''re in the habit of using my garden as a shortcut to the busstop; that may annoy me but there's no reason why it should make me afraid.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

The deal is that me simply being on your land without your permission is not, in itself, a crime. But, where other facts are also established, it may be a crime.

You mention gardens. The fact that land is your garden is not enough to make my presence there a crime. But it's "an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to trespass on any building or the curtilage thereof in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another person". So if I'm in your garden, and I don't have a reasonable excuse, and I'm behaving in a way that causes you fear (peering in your window would probably count) yeah, that's an offence.

The size of the garden isn't really an issue here but, the larger the garden, the harder is it is to claim that someone's presence in it will cause fear. If I've got four acres of lawns, trees, shrub and fishponds attached to my commodious suburban villa, and you've climbed over the wall fifty yards from the house to gather conkers, that's not really behaviour that could reasonably cause me fear. Similarly if you''re in the habit of using my garden as a shortcut to the busstop; that may annoy me but there's no reason why it should make me afraid.

Thanks a lot for that detailed response.

As you might have guessed I had in mind the landed gentry/estate owning types in mind with the previous question. I was just thinking that if someone were to "trespass" on their property that the law would be quicker to come moreso than if a wrong'un was walking around a farmer's field.

It appears; according to the law (which is ambiguous enough on the subject) treats both the same. The possible reality, however....

No intention of doing so myself, just the one rule for thee and another for me is annoying..

Thanks again

Peregrinus

The people who get most steamed up about trespass are, unsurprisingly, the ones who lose money, or are at risk of losing money, through it. That would be farmers (damage to crops, disturbance to livestock, risk of gates being left open or fences damaged) and the owners of commercial premises (damage to buildings, damage to stock on property). And since these are moneyed interests, they can generally get the ear of politicians and policymakers.

General annoyance and an outraged sense of ownership gets short shrift, mostly. Simple trespass is basically a property dispute - who has the right to use the property and who doesn't? - and property disputes are supposed to be sorted out between the parties involved without the taxpayers having to fund the matter.

Again thanks.

I can definitely see why farmers would be annoyed and rightly so. Crops and livestock is their livelihood. So I guess it's about who you know really. Not to mention insurance claims. It does seem unfair enough though that people can just come onto your property/sit on your wall whatever and you don't really have much right to tell them to leave.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Again thanks.

I can definitely see why farmers would be annoyed and rightly so. Crops and livestock is their livelihood. So I guess it's about who you know really. Not to mention insurance claims. It does seem unfair enough though that people can just come onto your property/sit on your wall whatever and you don't really have much right to tell them to leave.

You have every right to tell them to leave. More, you can use reasonable force to eject them, but what's "reasonable" depends on the circumstances and, if they're not doing any damage or causing you fear of injury or loss, the problem you have is not one that can reasonably be solved through violence.

Replace the wall with a blackthorn hedge. Only the most dedicated trespasser will sit on a blackthorn hedge.

Mjolnir

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have every right to tell them to leave. More, you can use reasonable force to eject them, but what's "reasonable" depends on the circumstances and, if they're not doing any damage or causing you fear of injury or loss, the problem you have is not one that can reasonably be solved through violence.

Replace the wall with a blackthorn hedge. Only the most dedicated trespasser will sit on a blackthorn hedge.

Once they've been asked/told to leave, if they then don't make a good effort/attempt in good faith to leave then your only obligation in removing them is not to intentionally cause harm.
Many a case exists in tort of people entering premises they have no right to be on and attempting to sue after injury.