# Aggravated trespass...



## TeeJF (Nov 13, 2012)

Hopefully we are all aware of the law in the UK regarding trespass, something of a "none-crime" in many ways because it is to all intents and purposes un-enforceable so long as you don't damage anything on site, steal anything or take with you "tools" such as might be used to commit an act of burglary, breaking and entering etc. At least that's how I understand it - and assuming you politely comply with the owner's (or his representative's) request to leave the site there is little can be done to you in law beyond a stern telling off, even when the dibble are called as often happens. I'm not even sure if you are obliged to stay and wait for the dibble's arrival. The application of a guard dog's teeth to one's nether regions are another matter of course and I'm far from sure how the law works on that.

...and of course lets not forget that trespass on a military site or the railways IS a crime at any time...

But...

What exactly is aggravated trespass, a crime for which I think you CAN be prosecuted? I hear conflicting descriptions and above the fact that this law only arrived on the statute book relatively recently I can find little or no comment.

The impression I get is that arriving on site with tools to cause some form of mayhem is aggravated trespass but then how is that different from arriving with the tools to break in and commit a burglary? 

Presumably being found on site with a can of spray paint would be an act of aggravated trespass?

BUT...

I am also under the impression that having been caught trespassing on a site in the conventional sense and having been asked to leave, if you were then caught back on the same site at a later date you would now have carried out an act of aggravated trespass and could find yourself open to prosecution for an actual crime?

Is anyone who reads this forum a solicitor or the like who can clarify this law (preferably accurately and without assumptions or surmise) please?

Please note: I FULLY appreciate that the law in other countries can be quite different and indeed that ordinary common or garden trespass is actually a criminal offense in many countries, not least Germany. The question I am asking here is pertinent to UK law only...


----------



## krela (Nov 13, 2012)

TeeJF said:


> I am also under the impression that having been caught trespassing on a site in the conventional sense and having been asked to leave, if you were then caught back on the same site at a later date you would now have carried out an act of aggravated trespass and could find yourself open to prosecution for an actual crime?



Exactly this, and also failing to leave when asked to by the landowner or agent of the landowner (security etc). Both constitute aggravated trespass.

None of your other examples would constitute aggravated trespass, they would be intent to cause criminal damage, attempted theft or going equipped.


----------



## TeeJF (Nov 13, 2012)

Let me put an interpretational question to you... and whilst it has no direct relation to the initial question it does have bearing in that it is an example of my perception of aggravated trespass... if for example you are pestered at home by doorstep salesmen you can "remove their implied right of access" to your property in writing or with signage prominently displayed, and then them walking up your drive becomes a repeated act of trespass, and by association, aggravated trespass... in such a situation or indeed in the case of re-entering a site you as an explorer have previously been ejected from, the land owner can in law "use such force as is necessary" to eject the trespasser from the land and/or call the police and insist they arrest the person for aggravated trespass?

Where am I going with this...?

Well, many of the sites we explore have prominent signage stating, "private property, no trespassing"... if such is the case your implied right of access, weak as such an argument would be if you were caught, is rendered null and void, and presumably that signage has just indicated in one fell swoop that you are about to commit an act of aggravated trespass? Or does the denial of your implied right of access have to be given in writing or verbally directly to the potential trespasser?


----------



## krela (Nov 13, 2012)

Laws and interpretation for inhabited residential properties are not the same thing and your particular scenario has been covered many times, Google for a comprehensive answer. Simply put a front path / door is a legally recognised right of access for lawful business, continually unwanted use of it would only constitute an illegal act in designated no cold calling areas set up by local councils. It might however constitute harassment.


----------



## krela (Nov 13, 2012)

No trespassing signs are meaningless. The implied law is *always* that you have no right to be there, unless it is a designated right of way. 

By being on the land you are committing a civil offence, of course you are otherwise on what grounds could anyone ask you to leave? Then if you refuse to leave you are committing a criminally illegal act, which again makes sense otherwise there would be no method with which to remove you.


----------



## UrbanX (Nov 13, 2012)

Interesting point about returning:
_"Failure to obey a direction to leave or returning to the land as a trespasser within 3 months is an offence."_

Taken from: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/trespass_and_nuisance_on_land/


----------



## skankypants (Nov 13, 2012)

Very useful,thanks..


----------



## TeeJF (Nov 13, 2012)

Ahhh cheers Lee... 

I'm not sure about your interpretation there Krela - I've been studying that particular aspect because I have a debt chaser on my ass (for a debt we have bank payment slips to prove we actually paid, long live RBS finance!). As I understood that thorny issue after they had been threatening to doorstep me and a consequential chat with my solicitor, you can actually instruct individuals that their "implied right of access" is no longer available to them and further trespass on one's land afterwards constitutes an offense in law. The only "peole" (and I use the term loosely) who are exempt, if you should chose to inform anyone and everyone, are the police in pursuit of an arrest or with a warrant, and bailiffs executing a warrant.

What was confusing though was the mention of the "no hawkers, no circulars, no salesmen" signage of old and the fact that it was in many ways no different to the "No Trespassers" signage on abandoned buildings.

I take on board the implied no right to be on private property you say, that's just common sense really, but of course there's not much of that around these days so that's why I sometimes blunder "inadvertently" into abandoned buildings with my camera. 

Lets see what else this thread throws up...

Thanks to all for contributing so far...


----------



## TeeJF (Nov 13, 2012)

Having just read the link Lee directed me at I wonder if it's worth making the info there a sticky or adding it to the general "law" bit of the urbex ethics on this site? It's very plain and well worth drawing to peeps attention.


----------



## chaoticreason (Nov 13, 2012)

Sometimes a touch of humility works a wonder upon a person.


----------



## outkast (Nov 13, 2012)

also no security guard or landowner/propery owner has the power to detain you, if you are approached by the above on their property and told you cant leave until the police arrive, you can simply walk away, they have no legal right to stop you leaving.

There was a discussion recently on the radio regarding this matter, it spoke about the litter wardens we have issuing fines in some cities for such things as throwing bread to ducks at the local park.

a soliciter rang in and said if you are ever approached by one, simply walk away, they cant detain you and neither can anyone else but the police.


----------



## TeeJF (Nov 13, 2012)

Interesting and it ties in with what we thought when we were 'detained' at a site in Saddleworth' pending the arrival of the dibble. Our suspicions were pretty much confirmed when the policeman drew himself up to his full height and said we must leave and I said, 'Weve been trying to for the past half hour', at which he cracked up laughing!


----------



## krela (Nov 13, 2012)

TeeJF said:


> Ahhh cheers Lee...
> 
> I'm not sure about your interpretation there Krela - I've been studying that particular aspect because I have a debt chaser on my ass (for a debt we have bank payment slips to prove we actually paid, long live RBS finance!). As I understood that thorny issue after they had been threatening to doorstep me and a consequential chat with my solicitor, you can actually instruct individuals that their "implied right of access" is no longer available to them and further trespass on one's land afterwards constitutes an offense in law. The only "peole" (and I use the term loosely) who are exempt, if you should chose to inform anyone and everyone, are the police in pursuit of an arrest or with a warrant, and bailiffs executing a warrant.
> 
> ...



Unless your solicitor is a criminal defense lawyer it's unlikely he really knows what he is talking about, and whilst the law may be vaguely worded enough for the above to be technically true, there is a BIG difference between point of criminal law and what will actually be prosecuted. In your case you don't have a hope in hell of getting the CPS to prosecute for aggravated trespass, but as I said above they are much likely to be more sympathetic to a harassment claim which is what it sounds like is going on and maybe you should pursue that.


----------



## TeeJF (Nov 13, 2012)

What we are going through with respect to two bit no hoper debt chasers is pretty irrelevant from the point of view of this forum, what I am far more concerned with is how the wording, and therefore the interpretation by the dibble and CPC of, the concept of aggravated trespass.


----------



## krela (Nov 13, 2012)

Actually having re-read the charging guidelines there has to be an intent to disrupt or obstruct lawful activity happening where you are trespassing AND you have to refuse to leave for you to be charged with aggravated trespass. Apart from in the case of live infiltration urbexers will never fall foul of this.

The law is aimed at direct action protesters, which is why I didn't include it in my law guide on the front page because it's not relevant.


----------



## mrscorp (Nov 13, 2012)

Got this info from the UK legislators website....Hope it is of use...


Offence of aggravated trespass.

(1)A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land [F1in the open air] and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land [F2in the open air] , does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—

(a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,

(b)of obstructing that activity, or

(c)of disrupting that activity.

[F3(1A)The reference in subsection (1) above to trespassing includes, in Scotland, the exercise of access rights (within the meaning of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 2)) up to the point when they cease to be exercisable by virtue of the commission of the offence under that subsection.]

(2)Activity on any occasion on the part of a person or persons on land is “lawful” for the purposes of this section if he or they may engage in the activity on the land on that occasion without committing an offence or trespassing on the land.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.

(4)

[F4A constable in uniform who reasonably suspects that a person is committing an offence under this section may arrest him without a warrant.]
(5)In this section “land” does not include—

(a)the highways and roads excluded from the application of section 61 by paragraph (b) of the definition of “land” in subsection (9) of that section; or

(b)a road within the meaning of the M1Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.

Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1
Words in s. 68(1) repealed (E.W.) (20.1.2004) by Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (c. 38), ss. 59(2), 92, 93, Sch. 3; S.I. 2003/3300, art. 2(g)(ii)(d)
F2
Words in s. 68(1) repealed (E.W.) (20.1.2004) by Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (c. 38), ss. 59(2), 92, 93, Sch. 3; S.I. 2003/3300, art. 2(g)(ii)(d)
F3
S. 68(1A) inserted (S.) (9.2.2005) by Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 2), ss. 99, 100(3)(4), Sch. 2 para. 13 (with s. 100(2)); S.S.I. 2005/17, art. 2(a)
F4
S. 68(4) repealed (E.W.) (1.1.2006) by Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15), ss. 111, 174, 178, Sch. 7 para. 31(6), Sch. 17; S.I. 2005/3495, art. 2(1)(u)(xxxvi) (subject to art. 2); s. 68(4) repealed (N.I.) (1.3.2007) by The Police and Criminal Evidence (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/288 (N.I. 2)), arts. 1(2)-(4), 15, 41, Sch. 1 para. 28(1), Sch. 2
Marginal Citations
M1
S.I. 1993/3160 (N.I. 15).


----------



## RichardH (Nov 13, 2012)

mrscorp beat me to it.

If you are exploring derelict places, and are doing so in a manner which cannot be construed as being intimidatory or likely to prevent other people carrying out legitimate activity on the site, and you leave immediately on request and without argument, then the likelihood of you being charged with aggravated trespass is slim to none.

Even if you were charged, then the likelihood of the charge going forward to prosecution is slim unless there is something exceptional about your case that justified the resources expended on it. I've asked around my friends in criminal practice and the general experience seems to be that it is a rarely-used statute intended for application in specific circumstances.

I'm not your solicitor, this is not legal advice, and so on and so forth.


----------



## ImmortalShadow (Nov 13, 2012)

Very interesting and good to know. Thank you


----------



## prettyvacant71 (Nov 14, 2012)

Don't go in live MoD sites (check ownership if derelict) or the railways....don't carry ANYTHING that can be described as a tool or weapon.

I learnt the hard way, many years ago, early 90's i was arrested for going equipped and an offensive weapon, different occassions...but i didn't get legal aid so ended up representing myself and to cut lots of stories short i ended up with a conviction for going equipped (had flat edge screw driver to start up my old capri as ignition knackered) but i was in Brookwood Hospital moochin about, UE wasn't as mainstream then but even today they would prosecute for any item considered a tool or weapon....and this conviction causes me a bit of grief if sec call plod as i always get a dam good searching!


----------



## UrbanX (Nov 14, 2012)

Goes to show, you really have to be careful. I know so many people that just take old rucksacks exploring, without a thought of what's still in the bottom. 
Going slightly off topic, except I guess you're way more likely to get fingered for going equipped than aggravated trespass - a lot of people still can't comprehend getting onto sites just to take photos!


----------



## krela (Nov 14, 2012)

This page covers everything you need to know about urbex and the law in detail, with official sources...


----------



## TeeJF (Nov 14, 2012)

Brilliant stuff all, thank you.


----------



## urbex_Sparky (Nov 14, 2012)

Very interesting reading, thanks for sharing chap's


----------



## mexico75 (Nov 14, 2012)

TeeJF said:


> ...and of course lets not forget that trespass on a military site or the railways IS a crime at any time...




Trespass on a military site isn't criminal unless it's been specially designated ie a nuke sub base, most military sites you will just be escorted to the gate and sent on your way the same as anywhere else.


----------



## krela (Nov 14, 2012)

It is blanket criminal on all active mod owned land apart from where designated right of way/access exist, it's just not necessarily enforced/prosecuted. It goes much much wider than just nuke bases to include even a lot of administrative sites.


----------



## mexico75 (Nov 16, 2012)

krela said:


> It is blanket criminal on all active mod owned land apart from where designated right of way/access exist, it's just not necessarily enforced/prosecuted. It goes much much wider than just nuke bases to include even a lot of administrative sites.



Yeah, but it's to much ball ache and paper work to do anything about it so they generally just kick you out, albeit sometimes at gun point which can be a bit alarming if your not used to guns.

One to steer clear of for definite though which aren't on the list, are anything to do with testing on animals, that is guaranteed to land you in a shit load of trouble. Anything that's closed since 1980 anyway.


----------



## krela (Nov 16, 2012)

Published in 99? That's nice but the law completely changed in 2005 and was modified further in 2006. As I've said before in this thread, the page I wrote on the law was properly researched, referenced to the Home office & CPS websites (i.e. the horses mouth), is current, and has been checked by criminal lawyers. Anecdotes and hearsay add nothing to it and just spread misinformation.


----------



## mexico75 (Nov 16, 2012)

Ah never saw that page, this thread however is just Anecdotes and hearsay and rather pointless.


----------

