Anyone know the name of this bill? I hadn’t heard about it, but it looks like it’s been cooked up with raves in mind to some extent
while it mentions Fathers 4 Justice and the Windor palace stunt, it actually covers 10s of thousands of hectres of land right accross the south west, and i don’t know how much of the rest of the county :noway:
don’t the super-rich have enough laws to protect them already??? :obey:
Western Morning News (Plymouth)
March 12, 2005
SECTION: News; Other; Others; Pg. 2
LENGTH: 500 words
HEADLINE: Dartmoor ramblers fear trespass laws
BODY:
A tough new Bill cracking down on trespassing in sensitive areas has sparked fears that walkers could be arrested on Dartmoor. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill gives the Home Secretary powers to ban people from straying on to Crown land in the interests of national security.It will make trespassing a criminal as opposed to civil offence and is intended as a disincentive to protesters looking for high-profile targets, such as the Fathers 4 Justice group or anti-hunt campaigners. But the legislation, which it is claimed has been “sneaked” through Parliament, could make criminals out of walkers and birdwatchers.
The Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society fear that, since the definition of Crown property applies to Duchy of Cornwall land – 19,000 acres of Cornwall and 51,250 acres of Devon, including vast swathes of Dartmoor – the region could fall under the Home Secretary’s control. The groups have written to peers asking them to reject or “radically amend” the Bill when it passes through the House of Lords for a second reading on Monday.
“The proposals are dangerously loose and wide-ranging,” said the Open Spaces Society’s Kate Ashbrook. “We have a paranoid Government. What if they think there is a water poisoning threat? They could close off Burrator Reservoir, and that would be it for walkers.” Gary Streeter, Tory MP for South West Devon, said the risk was small, but it was worth considering. “We have to be vigilant about guarding our civil liberties and it is good that people raise these things,” he said.
But Colin Breed, Liberal Democrat MP for South East Cornwall, said he himself had asked for legislation to prevent trespassing to prevent stunts such as the anti-nuclear protesters’ raid on Devonport naval base in Plymouth in September 2003.
He said: “If you have young men and women guarding sensitive sites and have foolish people trespassing to make a political point, then that’s why you need this sort of law. It’s by no means an attempt to block walkers from the wide open spaces of Dartmoor – that’s just absurd.” A Home Office spokesman said that after the Bill was passed, a second layer of legislation would go through Parliament specifying which sites the Home Secretary would want to protect. This would include Buckingham Palace, scaled by two Fathers 4 Justice protesters dressed as Batman and Robin last September, and Windsor Castle, where “comedy terrorist” Aaron Barschak gatecrashed Prince William’s 21st birthday last June.
He said: “Whichever sites of this type are designated – it will certainly be key sites, not all Crown land – the threshold required to justify the measure will be high. A full list of sites will be set out in any regulations made under this power and laid before Parliament. If an individual is found in an area designated under these provisions he or she is liable to arrest. But in practice the police will make a judgment and will only use these powers if necessary.”
.
this is the relevant bill
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/024/05024.90-96.html#J161
It does mention Duchy of Cornwall land and presumably land owned by Forestry Commission is also Crown land; OTOH in the present form it would have to be invoked by the Home Secretary and prosecuted by the Attorney General. Compared to the CJA which already exists for these purposes and can be (and usually is) invoked by the duty Inspector [1] in most police areas, IMO it would be an unwieldy law to use to stop a rave – particularly as the CJA has already been beefed up with the ASBO laws to deal with raves.
I cannot really see Charles Clarke being roused from bed at 0500 to sign a bit of paper to stop a rave the other side of the country, when there are already cops and laws to do that sort of thing!
This one does seem more finely targeted more political threats at the protesters and paranoia over suicide bombers and the like. That said its a dubious law from a civil liberties POV…
There appears to be a get-out clause which mentions “access rights” and that the landowner has the right to challenge the Home Office if they do not think a restriction order is appropriate, but that choice is decided between the landowner and the government, no one else…
It does not appear to make trespass elsewhere a criminal offence (the laws on squatting etc would remain the same). AFAIK trespass is already a criminal offence in Scotland though…
[1] (although the law says a Superintendent invokes it its usually a rubber-stamp process as soon as the police station has managed to rouse a superintendent to sign the paperwork)
Offence of trespassing on designated site
(1) A person commits an offence if he enters, or is on, any designated site in England and Wales or Northern Ireland as a trespasser.
(2) A “designated site” means a site…[cont]…
(b) designated for the purposes of this section by the order
I read that definition as meaning that trespass on ‘Crown land’ is automatically a criminal offence… does ‘the order’ have to mean something signed by a cabinet minister? or are the powers farther reaching than that?
the govt reassurance was that there would be a secondary round of legislation to decide which sites they wanted the law applied to…
“The proposals are dangerously loose and wide-ranging,” said the Open Spaces Society’s Kate Ashbrook. “We have a paranoid Government. What if they think there is a water poisoning threat? They could close off Burrator Reservoir, and that would be it for walkers.”.
for walkers read ravers
This is fairly common in legislation making something unlawful..
The “order” has to be signed at Ministerial level, and before this happens there normally would have to be a fair amount of debate within the relevant Civil Service department to decide which sites are “designated sites” or “key sites” (this is an old cold war term)
it has echos of the old Cold War legislation, where many sites were going to be patrolled by the Army and people kept out of them. Except in those days Thatcher’s Government just went ahead and made plans for this (including actual exercises) without telling all but a select few.
Knowing politicians, by the time they have even made a decision on which sites are worth protecting, we could have had an entire seasons worth of raves! I don’t think it would be used to prevent access to the countryside unless there was a real threat, there has been enough political fall-out over the FMD restrictions in 2001 [biggest emergency in the UK since WW II]. Its more likely to be used to stop Fathers 4 Justice and other such types.
As for walkers, in my area its usually those types who grass us up to the old bill! TBH I reckon when this law goes through in a years time or so it will probably be one of them who says “why can’t we use this law to keep the ravers out? They could use the reservoir as a toilet and contaminate it”
Compared to the CJA which already exists for these purposes and can be (and usually is) invoked by the duty Inspector [1] in most police areas, IMO it would be an unwieldy law to use to stop a rave – particularly as the CJA has already been beefed up with the ASBO laws to deal with raves.
while the CJA can be used to force the music to stop, i saw the potential as possibly being wielded to criminalise people who are attending an event (possibly without even knowing it was on a ‘designated site’ on dartmoor, for example)
i agree. although this doesn’t look too threatening at the moment, I’m concerned that it’s yet another piece of far reaching legislation that has big implications in an area where so much open space is owned by the inbred family
if this law does not apply to the entire UK, there would need to be some clear indication a site was “designated” in an easily accessible form.
Hopefully there are enough local people who are prepared to lobby for continued access and to accept there is a diverse collection of people who wish to use the countryside. (interestingly, cyclists tend to be more sympathetic towards raves!)
IMO the greatest danger would be if May returns the Conservatives to power – they will use this law for their own ends…. I’m sure one of Michael Howards first priorities would be to “finish unfinished business”…
0
Voices
4
Replies
Tags
This topic has no tags
