Parties appealed against convictions for aggravated trespass under the 1994 Act arising from trespassing demonstrations. They argued that the lawfulness of the activity being carried out on the land subject to the trespass is an ingredient in the offence of aggravated trespass. Accordingly, where material is advanced to indicate that the activity is or might not be lawful then, in the ordinary way, the prosecution must negate that defence to the criminal standard.
Held: The appeals under section 68 failed: ‘the cause which the appellants wish to champion, if it is to be litigated, can only be litigated in proceedings properly constituted for the purpose. Of course it goes without saying that the appellants are perfectly entitled to demonstrate and protest. But I do not think that the law allows them to resist a prosecution for aggravated trespass under section 68 by requiring an adjudication of the occupation of the Palestinian territories and associated matters.’
However, section 68 plainly included a company within the expression ‘person engaging in’ (lawful activity).
The appeals under section 69 succeeded. The defendants had tied themselves together within a concrete tube before the police direction was given.
The court certified a question for the Supreme Court: ‘Should the words ‘lawful activity’ in section 68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 be limited to acts or events that are ‘integral’ to the activities at the premises in question?’
Laws LJ, Owen J
[2012] EWHC 1238 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 68 69
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tilly v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 16-Oct-2001
The applicant had been convicted of aggravated trespass. She had gone onto farm land and destroyed genetically modified crops. She appealed.
Held: For the offence of aggravated trespass, it was necessary to show unlawful interference with . .
Cited – Ayliffe and others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Apr-2005
The case concerned actions taken at military bases by way of protest against the Iraq war. Each raised questions arising from the prosecution of the appellants for offences of aggravated trespass. The defendants asserted, among other things, that . .
Cited – Steel and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-1998
The several applicants had been arrested in different circumstances and each charged with breach of the peace contrary to common law. Under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, the court can bind over a Defendant to keep the peace, if the Defendant . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bauer and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Mar-2013
bauer_dppAdmn2013
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 . .
Appeal from – 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.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.460335
