Government plans to criminalise trespass

[Fractral]

I saw this posted on UKC and figured it could do with sharing here. The conservatives plan to criminalise trespass under the guise of granting extra powers to police forces for dealing with traveller communities. These laws would most likely also criminalise trespass by hikers, which is almost unavoidable in England and Wales if you wish to hike outside of certain open access areas. The guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/15/tresspass-trap-law-land-travelling-people-rights gives a good run down.

This is obviously concerning for those of us who hike regularly south of the border, but a commentor on the article notes that westminster now has the ability to overrule holyrood at will, which means that our right to roam could also be at stake. Indeed given that the conservatives are the party of the landed classes I doubt that the criminalising of trespass by hikers and walkers is unintentional; and I can imagine that certain less friendly estates would jump at the opportunity to go back to keeping hikers off "their" land.
That aside, the law and consultation are very worrying. It follows a trend of right wing parties introducing restrictions on the general public's freedoms under the pretence of cracking down on a disliked minority. The law can, and most likely will be used to try and suppress people from wild camping and walking on private countryside, which is the vast majority of the countryside. In addition the consultation makes it impossible to disagree with the actual criminalisation of trespass, instead only allowing you to comment on how targeted towards travellers you wish for it to be. (Assuming the government has any intention at all of listening to the responses and are not just putting it out for show).

So yeah, not too happy with this myself. Thoughts?

[Moriarty]

but a commentor on the article notes that westminster now has the ability to overrule holyrood at will, which means that our right to roam could also be at stake.

There has been no change in the nature of devolution recently.

This consultation and proposed law is for E + W, not Scotland.

...but if I lived in England it would be disturbing that an already outdated, unenlightened and landowning class skewed system might be becoming even less tolerant.

[Fractral]

but a commentor on the article notes that westminster now has the ability to overrule holyrood at will, which means that our right to roam could also be at stake.

There has been no change in the nature of devolution recently.

The commentor cites some texts here backing up said claim. I'm not a lawyer but the consensus seems to agree that if Westminster wishes to overrule the Scottish parliament here, they could do. Of course that is more serious than land access.

[mash tun]

...but a commentor on the article notes that westminster now has the ability to overrule holyrood at will, which means that our right to roam could also be at stake.

https://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx

https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/31308.aspx

The UK Parliament at Westminster retains power to legislate on any matter, but the convention of devolution is that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Covered under "Legislative Consent Memorandums".

IMO it's always possible to say that action1 might lead to action2 which might lead to action3 and so on. I would think though that if action1 were westminster overruling holyrood the scottish government might have something to say about it ?

[Moriarty]

but a commentor on the article notes that westminster now has the ability to overrule holyrood at will, which means that our right to roam could also be at stake.

There has been no change in the nature of devolution recently.

The commentor cites some texts here backing up said claim. I'm not a lawyer but the consensus seems to agree that if Westminster wishes to overrule the Scottish parliament here, they could do. Of course that is more serious than land access.

Indeed - the UK government could legislate on devolved matters in the same way that the monarch could refuse Royal Assent to legislation passed through the Houses of Parliament.

None of that has changed. I'm not sure I'd buy a car from a business with T and Cs like the British Constitution but that's the current state of play.

This will stay a South of the Border issue. Whether it impacts on walkers and campers remains to be seen. I'm never that happy if "officials" or law enforcement have discretion to interfere with my activities, you never know when you'll meet some megalomanic to***r.

[davekeiller]

Actually bother to read the consultation document.
It's clearly about people setting up encampments for a prolonged period of time and won't criminalise hikers or wild campers.

[mynthdd2]

....if I backpack through remote areas anywhere with my Akto nestled in some trees and am up early and away I really don't feel threatened by a London-centric ruling (on behalf or otherwise of landowners) - it seems to be an attempt at 'one size fits all'

[johnkaysleftleg]

Actually bother to read the consultation document.
It's clearly about people setting up encampments for a prolonged period of time and won't criminalise hikers or wild campers.

That is the overall idea but the door will be opened to criminalise trespass in general. The restriction of freedoms almost always starts with minorities. This should be of great concern of all of us south of the border but given the majority of the current government and the state of the opposition there is precious little anybody can do about it.

[dav2930]

Yes, it's all very worrying. Has this had a proper Parliamentary debate? The police say existing laws are sufficient to deal with issues of the travelling community; so why introduce a new umbrella law with wider implications, if it isn't the wider implications that the government are really interested in? Issues raised by the travelling community, it seems to me, are just being used as a populist pretext to get people on board. It's a tactic used by fascist regimes through history; stoke up majority prejudices against a minority in order to carry through a more sweeping agenda (that will ultimately disadvantage the majority).

The one ray of hope I can see is that the police themselves don't like it. So, hopefully, they may be reluctant to arrest walkers etc. in areas where access is traditionally tolerated. And if people did start getting arrested, hopefully there would be nationwide civil disobedience in similar spirit to, and on a much bigger scale than, the Kinder mass-trespass of the 1930's.

[Essan]

Actually bother to read the consultation document.
It's clearly about people setting up encampments for a prolonged period of time and won't criminalise hikers or wild campers.

Don't let facts get in the way of indignant tabloid outrage

[Essan]

Of course, this won't change the law in Scotland where "Under the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865, it is an offence to occupy private land without the permission of the landowner"

[Pastychomper]

I read and responded to the consultation. As it stands it shouldn't directly affect walkers in England and Wales since it targets groups of people who are trespassing with the purpose of staying there overnight, but if such a law was applied loosely then a landowner might be able to misuse it to harass walkers.

As I recall one of the suggestions was to reduce the number of trespassing vehicles needed for the police to take action (currently it's 6), I don't think the new number has been fixed yet. Another was to take into account what people are carrying with them - if it includes camping equipment then they could be assumed to intend to sleep on the land, and fall under the new law. A third was to confiscate equipment, including vehicles.

Suppose Jack decides to maintain his fitness by carrying a loaded pack when he goes for a walk. He drives into the country, parks with two wheels on a verge and sets off along a public footpath. On the way, some GOML notices he's carrying camping equipment and assumes he intends to camp on the land. Now the GOML has cause to believe that Jack is guilty of criminal trespass. They might not be able to make it stick in court, but it provides several legitimate ways to make his walk a lot less enjoyable.

[johnkaysleftleg]

Don't let facts get in the way of indignant tabloid outrage

Don't think the tabloids will give two hoots about this, I would have thought any law which makes life more difficult for the travelling community would be greated as great news by just about all of them.

[al78]

Suppose Jack decides to maintain his fitness by carrying a loaded pack when he goes for a walk. He drives into the country, parks with two wheels on a verge and sets off along a public footpath. On the way, some GOML notices he's carrying camping equipment and assumes he intends to camp on the land. Now the GOML has cause to believe that Jack is guilty of criminal trespass. They might not be able to make it stick in court, but it provides several legitimate ways to make his walk a lot less enjoyable.

Jack decides to go out for a walk and takes camping equipment. A GOML approaches.

"You are breaking the law."
"Why."
"You are camping on private land."
"But I'm not camping, I'm walking."
"Yes, but you have all the equipment, and could start any time."
"In that case, I am going to have you prosecuted for rape."
"But I haven't touched you."
"No, but you have all the equipment, and could start any time."

The GOML skulked away.

[Glengavel]

Don't let facts get in the way of indignant tabloid outrage

Don't think the tabloids will give two hoots about this, I would have thought any law which makes life more difficult for the travelling community would be greated as great news by just about all of them.

When I read the relevant section in the manifesto my thoughts were that it was pitched exactly at an approach that would appeal to the tabloid market.