The defendant trespasser set out to stop the clearance of land for the construction of a new by-pass. He gave evidence that one or more of the tree-fellers was using a chainsaw but not wearing gloves and suggested that that raised the real possibility that he was committing an offence contrary to the 1992 Regulations 1992 in not using equipment provided for him by his employers. He said that his actions ad been intended to stop the commission of that offence.
Held: The court declined to investigate whether any such offence was or was not made out. Even if it had been it could not affect the lawful nature of the activity which the defendant had disrupted, namely the clearance of the site. That was lawful in the sense that it was properly authorised. The ‘activity’ of the occupants could not be defined simply to extend to the actions of the particular chainsaw operator(s) spotted.
Citations:
[1996] EWHC Admin 280
Links:
Statutes:
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992
Cited by:
Cited – Richardson and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 5-Feb-2014
The defendants had protested against the activities of a shop, by trespassing. They were said to have committed the offence of aggravated trespass under section 68 of the 1994 Act. They objected in part that this infringed their article 10 right of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136828