Do not Knock on my Door....... question

Benbulnen64 · 30-03-2013 02:48PM

That kind of suggestion might even disturb me, Merch if I didn't have a hurley with barbed wire enforced boss ( purely cultural item naturally) within approx six feet from the front door...

Peregrinus · 30-03-2013 04:04PM

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

That kind of suggestion might even disturb me, Merch if I didn't have a hurley with barbed wire enforced boss ( purely cultural item naturally) within approx six feet from the front door...

That's for use on the dog, presumably!

Benbulnen64 · 31-03-2013 02:07AM

You've pegged me!

odds_on · 31-03-2013 06:29PM

Interesting thread, really.

So, on a lovely sunny day (if it ever comes again), I can go, with my deck chair and sit in someone's lovely garden, open my thermos, pour a cuppa, open my packed lunch and basically have a quiet picnic and the owner can't stop me?

jd80 · 31-03-2013 09:23PM

odds_on wrote: »

Interesting thread, really.

So, on a lovely sunny day (if it ever comes again), I can go, with my deck chair and sit in someone's lovely garden, open my thermos, pour a cuppa, open my packed lunch and basically have a quiet picnic and the owner can't stop me?

My thoughts exactly

Is one committing any other offence? e.g nuisance (is there such an offence?)

What about something that was mentioned earlier about one's right to a quiet home - is there such a statute that allows this?

Anyway, it could be argued that our friend with the deck chair would not be impinging on the owner's quietness.

Ted_YNWA · 31-03-2013 09:38PM

Could your house just happen to have dodgy wiring in the doorbell that hasnt been fixed?

BRAIN FEEDs · 31-03-2013 09:55PM

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Could your house just happen to have dodgy wiring in the doorbell that hasnt been fixed?

youd get no shock from that id imagine.

which reminds me,one friday evening a few months ago,just after 8pm,just about saw this guy passing my front window,got off my chair just as the doorbell rang,1 second later he thumps on the door with his fist,i unlocked the door,opened it and said "did i answer the door to you quick enough? was i not quick enough that you felt the need to ring the bell and thump on the door,well?":mad:

he said sorry,and proceeded into his selling of a well know broadband,told him i wasnt interested,and please leave now,just before i go he asked,who is your current provider,none of your business i said,now please leave....... and dont ever come back....... he took a few steps away,and cheekily replied,i will come back if i choose to. i closed the door,walked up to him and said,please,never,ever come back to this address again...... he walked off with his mate.

following morning........... i have a flat rear Tyre on my car...

Benbulnen64 · 01-04-2013 02:25AM

Yes Ted or erect a bit of that live wire that they had near Fort Camden years ago ( maybe still do) to stop trespassers entering...

jd80 · 01-04-2013 02:30PM

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Yes Ted or erect a bit of that live wire that they had near Fort Camden years ago ( maybe still do) to stop trespassers entering...

and get sued

odds_on · 01-04-2013 02:44PM

A pity there has to be so many light-hearted wise cracks to a thread that potentially may affect so many people.

Peregrinus · 01-04-2013 03:39PM

odds_on wrote: »

Interesting thread, really.

So, on a lovely sunny day (if it ever comes again), I can go, with my deck chair and sit in someone's lovely garden, open my thermos, pour a cuppa, open my packed lunch and basically have a quiet picnic and the owner can't stop me?

No, we're not saying that. All we're saying is that you're not committing a crime.

There are a couple of things the owner can do. He can ask you to leave. He can call the guards, and get them to ask you to leave. He can, if he cares to make a judgment about what is "reasonable", use "reasonable force" to get you off his premises. He can pick up your thermos and/or sandwiches and remove them from his property, leaving you with the choice of going hungry or going after them (when he will no doubt take the opportunity to remove you deckchair from his property). If you make a habit of doing this, he can take court action to get an order requiring you to stay away from his property.

odds_on · 01-04-2013 03:57PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, we're not saying that. All we're saying is that you're not committing a crime.

There are a couple of things the owner can do. He can ask you to leave. He can call the guards, and get them to ask you to leave. He can, if he cares to make a judgment about what is "reasonable", use "reasonable force" to get you off his premises. He can pick up your thermos and/or sandwiches and remove them from his property, leaving you with the choice of going hungry or going after them (when he will no doubt take the opportunity to remove you deckchair from his property). If you make a habit of doing this, he can take court action to get an order requiring you to stay away from his property.

Therefore, if someone (i.e. the owner) can remove me / have me removed, I must be committing an offence. An offence is, by definition, a breach of a law or rule - an illegal act. Then, the question is which law am I breaking? It cannot be simple trespass, because, as you stated in a previous post. "trespass on its own, has never been an offence".

jd80 · 01-04-2013 04:11PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

He can call the guards, and get them to ask you to leave.

Why should you have to leave for them? what other power do they have that the owner does not have?

One can, as alluded to earlier, say no and carry on reading one's poetry on the deck chair, thank you very much.

If simple trespass is not an offence, why would AGS even get involved? Surely, they would spout the usual line of 'its a civil matter' to the complainant.

Or not?

Kevin3 · 01-04-2013 05:33PM

jd80 wrote: »

Why should you have to leave for them? what other power do they have that the owner does not have?

One can, as alluded to earlier, say no and carry on reading one's poetry on the deck chair, thank you very much.

If simple trespass is not an offence, why would AGS even get involved? Surely, they would spout the usual line of 'its a civil matter' to the complainant.

Or not?

You and the garda would be using the same power, namely Section 18 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997:

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.

You would be involving the gardaí to show you attempted to avoid using force and to have a reliable witness to say that any force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

If the circumstances were such that there was no time to call the gardaí you could use force yourself as long as it was reasonable in the circumstances.

Your scenario is unlikely though. In answer to a more likely scenario in this thread:

So if someone walks into a yard and walks around but you cannot prove intent to commit an offence or unlawfully interfere or his presence is not likely to cause fear, he is committing no offence?

I think that considering the circumstances and if the person doesn't have a reasonable excuse for being there then there is of course reasonable cause to suspect that there are committing one of the criminal trespass offences and the gardaí can get involved.

Hitchens · 01-04-2013 05:44PM

zenno wrote: »

If they ring three times

or twice on the pipes...............................................TAXI! :pac:

Benbulnen64 · 02-04-2013 02:10AM

Kevin, spot on...

JD, try to spot it when a tongue in cheek comment is made rather than an actual suggestion!

Pat Mustard · 02-04-2013 03:55AM

odds_on wrote: »

Therefore, if someone (i.e. the owner) can remove me / have me removed, I must be committing an offence. An offence is, by definition, a breach of a law or rule - an illegal act. Then, the question is which law am I breaking? It cannot be simple trespass, because, as you stated in a previous post. "trespass on its own, has never been an offence".

If you are talking about coming onto a person's land and sitting there on a deckchair, refusing to move, see that S.24 of the Housing Act 2002 inserts amendments into the Public Order act, essentially making it an offence to occupy or take any object onto land without the owner's consent, where such entry or occupation or the bringing onto or placing on the land of such object is likely to—

(i) substantially damage the land,
(ii) substantially and prejudicially affect any amenity in respect of the land,
(iii) prevent persons entitled to use the land or any amenity in respect of the land from making reasonable use of the land or amenity,
(iv) otherwise render the land or any amenity in respect of the land, or the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land, unsanitary or unsafe,
(v) substantially interfere with the land,

Although I understand that this law was drafted with a view to stopping travellers from occupying private land, it could mean that a trespasser on a deckchair may also commit an offence, provided that it can be shown that said trespasser is preventing the landowner from making reasonable use of his land or an amenity in respect of the land.

Peregrinus · 02-04-2013 03:57AM

odds_on wrote: »

Therefore, if someone (i.e. the owner) can remove me / have me removed, I must be committing an offence.

Not at all There are lots of legal rules, infringing which leaves you open to a variety of sanctions, but is not an offence.

jd80 wrote: »

Why should you have to leave for them [the guards]? what other power do they have that the owner does not have?

One can, as alluded to earlier, say no and carry on reading one's poetry on the deck chair, thank you very much.

In this situation, I don’t think the guards have any power that the owner doesn’t have. Nevertheless, people are more likely to respond to a “move on” direction from a guard than from a private citizen, so in practice this may resolve the situation.

If it doesn’t, the guards are quite skilled at escalating situations into one where, while nobody gets hurt, an offence of a disorderly conduct type is committed, thus enabling an arrest and the stand-off to be resolved. As you say, if the trespasser is sufficiently cool and collected, he can avoid this, but in such situations the guards are generally more skilled, and more knowledgeable, than the trespasser.

jd80 wrote: »

If simple trespass is not an offence, why would AGS even get involved? Surely, they would spout the usual line of 'its a civil matter' to the complainant.

Or not?

They could. On the other hand, it’s not unknown for the guards to attend a situation in which a breach of the peace looks like a possibility, with a view to defusing it before an offence is committed. Furthermore, if called by the landowner, they won’t really know until they get there whether this is a simple civil trespass, or an “aggravated” trespass of a type that would be an offence under the public order legislation. Remember, it’ll be the landowner who calls them, and he is likely to talk the situation up.

odds_on · 02-04-2013 10:54AM

The Mustard wrote: »

If you are talking about coming onto a person's land and sitting there on a deckchair, refusing to move, see that S.24 of the Housing Act 2002 inserts amendments into the Public Order act, essentially making it an offence to occupy or take any object onto land without the owner's consent, where such entry or occupation or the bringing onto or placing on the land of such object is likely to—

(i) substantially damage the land,
(ii) substantially and prejudicially affect any amenity in respect of the land,
(iii) prevent persons entitled to use the land or any amenity in respect of the land from making reasonable use of the land or amenity,
(iv) otherwise render the land or any amenity in respect of the land, or the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land, unsanitary or unsafe,
(v) substantially interfere with the land,

Although I understand that this law was drafted with a view to stopping travellers from occupying private land, it could mean that a trespasser on a deckchair may also commit an offence, provided that it can be shown that said trespasser is preventing the landowner from making reasonable use of his land or an amenity in respect of the land.

Thanks to The Mustard.
clause (iii) does seem to cover many eventualities.
The owner can come along with his deck chair and say that I have taken his spot. He could also send out his kids to play football and thus, I would be impinging on their rights to use the whole area.

I was brought up believing that a man's house was his castle - like the Rock of Cashel - impenetrable, so to speak.

johnnyskeleton · 02-04-2013 12:58PM

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

youd get no shock from that id imagine.

which reminds me,one friday evening a few months ago,just after 8pm,just about saw this guy passing my front window,got off my chair just as the doorbell rang,1 second later he thumps on the door with his fist,i unlocked the door,opened it and said "did i answer the door to you quick enough? was i not quick enough that you felt the need to ring the bell and thump on the door,well?":mad:

he said sorry,and proceeded into his selling of a well know broadband,told him i wasnt interested,and please leave now,just before i go he asked,who is your current provider,none of your business i said,now please leave....... and dont ever come back....... he took a few steps away,and cheekily replied,i will come back if i choose to. i closed the door,walked up to him and said,please,never,ever come back to this address again...... he walked off with his mate.

following morning........... i have a flat rear Tyre on my car...

Report him to his employer - he'll be fired quicksmart.

guttenberg · 02-04-2013 01:07PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Report him to his employer - he'll be fired quicksmart.

BRAIN FEEDS has no proof his slashed tyre was done by the cold caller?

johnnyskeleton · 02-04-2013 03:40PM

guttenberg wrote: »

BRAIN FEEDS has no proof his slashed tyre was done by the cold caller?

If I had a cheeky employee like that going around saying that I would call into someone's house even if they didn't want me there, I'd fire them.

BRAIN FEEDs · 02-04-2013 09:22PM

sorry guys........... the tyre wasnt slashed,nor was it punctured........... the air was simply let out from the tyre...i had a pump to plug into the cigarette lighter. it was so flat,it would either have to be changed or pumped up,i couldnt have driven it to the local garage a few hundred yards away from my home.

BRAIN FEEDs · 02-04-2013 09:24PM

guttenberg wrote: »

BRAIN FEEDS has no proof his slashed tyre was done by the cold caller?

that is true,but i did say to the mrs at the time how i thought the tyre happened to be flat:cool:

smirker · 04-04-2013 10:23AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The judge in which case?

In this case.

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/bef055953bed4177802577610053f4d4?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,glantine

(3) I am satisfied that the plaintiff had every opportunity to leave the premises voluntarily and that had he not resisted there would have been no need for the security staff to move him backwards out the premises as they did. In this regard, the video shows a number of patrons in the process of being evicted from the nightclub and are seen to be leaving in an orderly fashion at the request of security staff. They can be seen being what I would describe as being “frog marched” out of the nightclub ahead of security staff without any physical contact being made with them. It was only because the plaintiff resisted efforts to move him that physical intervention was necessary.

Do not Knock on my Door....... question

Comments