The information against the derendants alleged no more than that the accused had ‘unlawfully occupied the site and that they had done so with the intention specified in s.68’ of the 1994 Act.
Held: The information did not disclose any offence known to the law. Section 68 makes it plain that to prove an offence of aggravated trespass not only must a trespass be proved but also a further act, accompanied by one or more of the intentions identified in the section. The act of entering onto land itself, could not be the second element of an allegation of aggravated trespass, since it was nothing more than a repeat of the allegation of trespass. Some separate and additional act must be alleged. Sufficient detail must be given to identify what particular acts, over and above the trespass, created the aggravating element.
The prosecutor sought to amend the information by adding an allegation that the accused had unlawfully occupied the site. The court doubted whether it would have been proper to allow the amendment and whether that would be sufficient to disclose a defence under s.68. Laws LJ said: ‘Mr Starmer, who appears for one only of the respondents . . concedes . . that there may be circumstances in which unlawful occupation in company with others could amount to the second act required to be proved under s.68. I would accept this; but in such a case I doubt whether a bare allegation of occupation would be satisfactory. At least I think it should be supported by some further particulars of what it is said the defendant was actually doing. The starting point is that the second act required by the statute must, in my judgment, be distinct and overt. Occupation may, in reality, in some cases amount to no more than the initial trespass. If the case being made were that the second act was constituted by the respondents distinctly remaining on the land in force and thus intimidating those lawfully engaged there, then I would expect to see something more than mere occupation with others pleaded in the information.’
Laws LJ tabulated the three elements which s.68(1) requires to be proved: ‘(i) Trespass on land in the open air; (as the Act then provided)
(ii) the doing of some act – that must be some distinct and overt act beyond the trespass itself; and
(iii) the intention by this second act to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt.’
Judges:
Laws LJ
Citations:
Times 09-Nov-1999, Gazette 03-Nov-1999
Statutes:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 68(1)
Cited by:
Cited – Bauer and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Mar-2013
The appellants had entered Fortnum and Masons to demonstrate against tax avoidance. They appealed against convitions for aggravated trespass.
Held: The statutory question posed by s.68 is whether the prosecution can prove that the trespasser . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79692