Stopping trespassers

First off slurry is only a short term solution it's duration is only 2-3 week at month most. Cost could be horrendous if the draw is long. As well if the land has been neglected it may be hard to carry out that option.

Reclaim may not necessarily stop them entering the land. When reclaimed what agri activity do you carry out. Tillage is not an option as they could leave object's such as bikes that will damage harvesters.

OP you will either have to live with the trespassers and keep informing guards of there presence or carry out an agri activity that will prevent there access.

For the quasi legal people the courts are quite clear you owe no duty if care to a trespassers as long as you do not intentionally attempt to injure them. This allows farmers to carry out agriculture activity without the fear of someone getting injured or even killed during trespassing. This law has been tested in many accidental cases and has never been successfully challenged. It is not just related to agriculture it has been used by Coilte ( a wooden broadwalk where some slipped), also by a Retailer carpark where a customer was taking a regular short cut and fell where there was steps available.

OP is entitled to carry out an agricultural activity on his land. He may change that activity either through economic necessity or in this case bacase he can carry out no other activity like sheep farming because of dog or tillage because of potential machinery damage or crop damage

If it was me I would clean any rubble etc into a corner of the field. Fence the field with electric fence if possible ( but because of potential theft of energiser you would probably have to use barbed wire. 3-4 rows. I have would install a crush and handling faculities( or probably use a portable crush when loading) . Then I would put in the JEx ideally or FRX bulls.

I would put in place appropriate signs at possible entry point beware of Bull or Electric fence. I would also make sure to have appropriate insurance in place.

Other than that it's do a deal.withnsome rough lads with horses and again put appropriate insurance in place.

Liability is far from the black and white you subscribe to.

assuming that the OP does not have any other JEX bulls, then an isolated purchase of same and putting them in that field, irrespective of signs, fencing, etc. would be a dicey prospect to defend in court in the event of serious injury and/or fatality.

100% and this the the point I have been trying to make all along. Unless you routinely have bulls on your farm, getting a one off purchase of an aggressive breed of bull (or a few of them) and putting them in a field that you know to be frequented by teenagers, well I would be leaning towards that been seen by a judge as reckless endangerment.

Because

1. you knew that they were a dangerous animal,
2. you knew that this particular field was popular with teenagers hanging around
3. as an experienced farmer you ought to have known that a bull and teenagers on the same turf was a highly risky mix
4. but you knowingly went ahead and did it anyway, knowing the potentially lethal consequences, and a man of your experience on the land ought to have known that teenagers accustomed to roaming that land are unlikely to pay much heed to warnings and signs.

I think at best it would be seen as reckless, and at worst seen as a deliberate act intended to cause harm to a trespasser.

Cluelessly causing a dangerous situation out of thoughtlessness or ignorance is one thing, but to deliberately and knowingly create a dangerous situation is a very different and much more serious affair.

You could rest assured, that the plaintiff's barrister in a civil case would be pounding this line of argument across the bench.

There was outrage (for want of a better word) by farming groups when the ESB case was decided as it did have massive implications for farmers. People did not expect it at the time. It was part of the reason why the 1995 Act was brought in. For most land related issues, the Act will cover it and risk of a surprise is not there to the same extent.

The customer is an invited guest into the carpark and the shopping area. This was a retailer ( supermarket not a retail park) who provide a safe parking area and an exit via steps ( and I presume wheelchairs) to access and egress to the street footpaths alongside. The was a rat run via a grass bank used by some shoppers. The case involved a shopper using this grassy bank who slipped and broke a bone. The court held that when the went onto the grassy area they were trespassers. As long as they were in the car park area, the steps to the footpath and the shopping area they were invited guest.

As I said the law is clear and has NEVER being successfully challenged.

Bass, if you are referring to this case

I think it was more that the appeal judge said that the owner actually satisfied their duty of care rather to visitors rather than be considering the claimant to be a trespasser and that they basically weren't responsible for fencing off everything when they had clearly provided safe routes

Just sell the land to some property developer for 27 million euro and retire 😄

Seriously I think slurry would do the job, even if you only do it two or three times over a few weeks its enough to change their behavior and get them to find somewhere else, no-one wants to fall off a bike into a pile of shite or have to wash their dog covered in it.

I remember reading about a court case in the IFJ in the late 80's/early 90's. My memory of the details are hazy but a judge ordered a dairy farmer to remove a bull (that was running with cows) from his lands that was beside a recently built housing estate. The farmer claimed that he had the right to farm it and had sinage in place to warn that a bull was present. The judge took the view that minors may not be able to read/understand the signage. The judge made the comment that the farmer had recourse to using AI and running a bull wasn't necessary. I think the case was on the outskirts of Mullingar but stand corrected.

I got the biggest laugh out of alot of legal tripe talked here.

Regards the land .. as one poster suggested.. if its beside houses its probably zoned and worth a bit in the current climate. Probably selling it and getting a more suitable parcel of land would solve alot of problems.

From past experiance a neighbour of mine had a similar problem and bought weanlings not pinched for this certain field .. as they came on and got big for the summer months they spent alot if time in that field. He had all his fences right and gates lock etc. Never had a problem after that.. he got hard to go into the field himself. Your a farmer .. you have the right to put what ever animal you want into the field .. your intensions are hear say

Well you can laugh at the legal "tripe" all you wish. As they say - ignorance is bliss, but if you find yourself suddenly on the wrong side of the system, ignorance of the law will not be taken as an excuse.

Your story about your buddy is irrelevant as nobody was injured. What the OP was concerned about was liability if someone did get injured. It didn't arise for your buddy. It won't arise in most cases. If it does arise, then you might find out that the law is "unfair". At that stage it is too late to go back to leave yourself in a better position