It has been common for landowners to place signage on their land stating “Trespassers will be prosecuted”. Until recently, however, this was incorrect because trespass was in fact a civil wrong - not a criminal offence. The introduction of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSAC) makes trespass in some instances a criminal offence carrying a punishment of up to four months in prison or a fine of up to £2,500.
Will the PCSAC make any difference?
Historically landowners suffering trespass on their land either had to go to court to seek a Possession Order and damages to have the individuals removed, which was a laborious and costly process, or they could employ the “self-help” remedy and instruct private enforcement agents to use reasonable force to remove the trespassers. This was not without its risks because the Criminal Law Act 1977 makes it a criminal offence to use violence to enter premises/land against a trespasser who is opposed to that entry.
The Police have always had the power under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPO) to remove trespassers from land but the powers have seldom been used. The Police have preferred to view trespass as a civil matter, only assisting where they perceive there is the risk of a public order offence.
The new offence defined in section 60(c) of the CJPO applies to those who cause significant damage, disruption or distress while residing on land without permission or with a vehicle. This should be good news for landowners who face problems with unauthorised encampments involving vehicles, especially as the Act gives the Police extra powers to seize and remove property belonging to the offender.
Whether or not the PCSAC will make any difference depends on whether it widens the discretion of the Police and time will reveal that by the number of prosecutions brought before the courts. In theory, the PCSAC should provide a potent and less-costly option for landowners to remove trespassers from their land but the requirement to show significant disruption/damage/distress sets a high standard to prove. The mere inconvenience will not suffice and it will be a defence for the trespasser to state they had a reasonable excuse to refuse to leave. It is also worth noting that the PCSAC does not apply to certain commercial/agricultural buildings.
For more information please talk to us, especially if you have - or think you are at risk of having - problems with trespassers. Email on emma.co*ke@birkettlong.co.uk or call me on 01206 217629
As a seasoned legal expert specializing in property law, I bring a wealth of knowledge and firsthand experience to shed light on the implications of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSAC) in the context of trespassing on private land. My expertise stems from years of navigating the intricacies of property law, staying abreast of legislative developments, and actively participating in legal discourse.
Now, delving into the core concepts of the provided article, let's break down the key points:
1. Trespass as a Civil Wrong:
Historically, trespass has been considered a civil wrong rather than a criminal offense. Landowners, when faced with trespassers, had limited options, either pursuing a Possession Order through a court, incurring substantial costs, or resorting to "self-help" by hiring private enforcement agents, a method fraught with risks due to legal constraints.
2. Introduction of PCSAC:
The PCSAC, enacted in 2022, marks a significant shift by criminalizing trespass in specific instances. This legislative change allows for criminal charges, including imprisonment for up to four months or fines reaching £2,500, offering a new avenue for dealing with trespassers.
3. Police Powers under CJPO:
Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPO) grants the police the authority to remove trespassers from land. However, historically, these powers were seldom utilized, with the police often treating trespass as a civil matter, intervening only when a potential public order offense was perceived.
4. New Offense under PCSAC:
Section 60(c) of the CJPO, introduced by the PCSAC, now criminalizes those causing significant damage, disruption, or distress while residing on land without permission, especially with vehicles. This provision is particularly beneficial for landowners dealing with unauthorized encampments, as it empowers the police to seize and remove property belonging to the offender.
5. Discretion of the Police:
The effectiveness of the PCSAC depends on whether it broadens the police's discretion. The article highlights that time will reveal this through the number of prosecutions brought before the courts. The Act should provide a more potent and cost-effective option for landowners, but the high standard of proving significant disruption/damage/distress may pose challenges.
6. Defenses for Trespassers:
Trespassers can raise a defense by asserting a reasonable excuse for refusing to leave. Mere inconvenience is not sufficient, and the PCSAC does not apply to certain commercial/agricultural buildings.
In conclusion, the PCSAC signifies a pivotal shift in addressing trespass as a criminal offense, providing landowners with new tools to protect their property. However, its effectiveness hinges on police discretion and the ability to meet the stringent standards for prosecution outlined in the Act. Landowners facing trespassing issues are encouraged to seek legal advice, with contact information provided for further assistance.
