|
|
|
Notes
This case establishes two legal points on aggravated trespass.
The first point is a rather technical legal one, which from an activists' perspective is not that important. It states that where someone is charged under Section 68 of the CJA with intentionally deterring, obstructing, or disrupting a lawful activity, the prosecution do not need to bring separate charges for each of the three forms of activity. The defendant in the case had argued that the charges were "duplicitous" because she had been charged with having deterred, obstructed and disrupted a foxhunt in one charge, whereas separate charges should have been brought for each. The judge ruled that this was not the case, as deterring, obstructring and disrupting were merely effects of the criminal act of aggravated trespass, so there was no need to bring a separate charge for each.
The second point sheds light on what can and cannot amount to a "lawful activity" under Section 68 CJA. In order to be convicted for aggravated trespass, you need to be disrupting "lawful activity", so if you can show that the activity is in fact unlawful, then you cannot be convicted. In this case the defendant had been engaged in disrupting a fox hunt, which had for a period of time trespassed on a railway line. The defendant argued that this rendered the activity unlawful. The judge ruled however that the hunt's activity as a whole was lawful in that for the most of the time it was not trespassing, and therefore the defence was not available. The judge also ruled that the whole hunt was not rendered unlawful by the trespassing on the railway line becuase many of the riders did not take part in the trespass.
The general thrust of the ruling is that this defence is only likely to succeed where the activity taken "as a whole" was unlawful. In this sense the ruling is very similar to that in Hibberd.
The case, although not very helpful to activists, can be of some use. The judge did rule that if the protestors had confined their activity to a period when a significant part of the hunt was trespassing, then they would not be liable for aggravated trespass. So if a hunt were digging out a fox, for example, in a wood where they were trespassing then you would not be committing aggravated trespass in preventing them. Similarly League Against Cruel Sports monitors are perfectly entitled to prevent hunts from illegally trespassing on their land
NB: Our summary only refers to the first of the two legal points raised in the case. The full text obviously contains both.
This article is for information purposes only; its aim is to let people to know their full rights under UK law. Nothing on these pages is absolute as the law is always changing; if in doubt contact a trusted solicitor for further advice. We do not encourage you to break the law.
Please feel free to copy and distribute these articles to fellow activists, but do not alter the text in any way. These articles are anti-copyright for non-commercial purposes. Please visit www.freebeagles.org for the latest version of our articles and to learn about the freeBEAGLES Ethical Open Document License under which this document is distributed.
If you see any errors, or we have missed any changes to the legal situation please contact us as soon as possible, at info@freebeagles.org, as wrong information can prove costly to people's freedom.
© Copyright freeB.E.A.G.L.E.S.; last updated: January 2004