|
|
|
Trespass to land – Aggravated trespass – Defence – Damage to crops – Defendant charged on two occasions with aggravated trespass – Defendant submitting prosecution unable to make out case of aggravated trespass since no one was engaging in a lawful activity – Whether engaging in a lawful activity requiring physical presence of a person engaged in such activity – Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 68(1).
In August 2000, T was charged with an offence of aggravated trespass, after she damaged a quantity of genetically modified crops which were being grown as part of trials being conducted on behalf of the Government.
At the close of the prosecutions case, T made a submission of no case to answer, contending that the prosecution had failed to provide any evidence that the act of disruption was done in relation to any lawful activity in which persons were engaged or about to be engaged. She submitted that for the offence to be complete, it was not sufficient that the activity was taking place on the land, as the person who was carrying out the activity also had to be on the land. The justices determined that the absence of the farmer, or any of his representatives meant that there was no one engaged, or about to be engaged in a lawful activity, and that their absence meant that the offence of aggravated trespass could not be made out.
Subsequently in December 1999, an information was preferred against T charging an identical offence in Cambridge. The stipendiary magistrate convicted T and her appeal was dismissed by the Crown Court. The prosecution and T appealed by way of case stated against those respective decisions. The question for the opinion of the High Court was whether, for an offence to be committed under s 68(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, in relation to any lawful activity which persons were engaging in on land in the open air, such persons had to be physically present on the land at the time of the trespass and action intended to disrupt that activity. Section 68(1) of the 1994 Act provided:‘A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open air and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that adjoining land in the open air, does anything which is intended by him to have the effect…(c) of disrupting that activity.
The Director of Public Prosecution’s appeal would be dismissed.
T’s appeal would be allowed.
In order for an offence to be committed under s 68(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, in relation to any lawful activity which persons were engaging in on land in the open air, such persons had to be physically present on the land at the time of the trespass and action intended to disrupt that activity. The Act contemplated situations where people were intimidated, or were prevented from carrying out the activity as they wished. In the instant cases, neither the farmer, nor his representatives had been present at the time of the trespass. It followed that T’s conviction would be quashed.
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