• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Entry to anothers land without permission is never justifiable and is always actionable per se. Discuss the above view of the tort of trespass to land.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Trespass to land occurs where a person directly enters upon another's land without permission, or remains upon the land, or places or projects any object upon the land. This tort is usually actionable per se as claimants do not need to prove damage. By contrast, nuisance is an indirect interference with another's use and enjoyment of land, and normally requires proof of damage to be actionable. With regards to trespass on highways, in Hickman v Maisey, it was traditionally thought that anyone who uses the highway for any other purpose (abuse) becomes a trespasser. This means use other than for passing and repassing and other incidental use which does not interfere with, or obstruct, the highway. In DPP v Jones, the defendants had staged a demonstration at the side of the road. None were behaving in a destructive or violent way, and nobody else using the highway was obstructed by their presence. It was held that the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided that the activity in question does not amount to public or private nuisance and does not ...read more.

Middle

Later, they ordered more wine, and this time refused to pay. It was held that a wrongful act committed at this stage could retrospectively render their original entry unlawful. However, the defendants were held not liable because they had not committed an act, only an omission, and this was not enough to create liability (failing to pay). To be liable for trespass, the defendant must have intended to do the action that amounted to the trespass. They do not have to have intended to commit a trespass, or to know that what they did would be a trespass. Nor do they need to have any intention to cause problems for the claimant, or have any kind of hostile purpose. In Basely v Clarkson, the defendant was cutting grass, and without realizing, went over the boundary onto his neighbour?s land. This was held to be trespass, because he intended to cut the grass he was cutting, even though he did not intend to cross his neighbour?s boundary. Where a person trespasses accidentally, either being unaware that the land is private, or mistakenly believe it is their own, liability is incurred nevertheless. ...read more.

Conclusion

In such circumstances, trespass to land may be justifiable and would not be actionable. If an action for trespass to land is successfully brought, plaintiff may be able to ask for damages. If there is damage suffered by the claimant, substantial damages may be given to compensate the claimant. This would include profits taken by defendant during the occupation- so long as it is deemed reasonable. There are some instances when injunctions are a more suitable remedy. They are a prohibition in order to allow the claimant to enjoy use of their land. Injunctions are granted at the discretion of the court and can be used to prevent threatened or repeated breaches. In cases where trespassers refuse to leave, landowners may use reasonable force to expel trespassers. However, this is not encouraged as it may amount to breach of peace. Squatters, for example, whose presence is continuous and threatens to be permanent, an action for recovery for land could be brought against them. Police are given powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1984 to remove such persons. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Property Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Police Powers of Search and Entry.

    son and threw the child onto a hard surface, causing head injuries from which the child died RV Woollin (1998). The differences between the others are that murder is the intentional and planned act of murder. A person should have thought about it, intended the murder and carried out the action.

  2. Areas of PACE

    This reason for suspecting is specified in paragraph 2.2 of Code A as not acceptable. When looking at which sections of PACE apply to this case, section 17 is not relevant, as the search was not carried out for any of the reasons contained within section 17.

  1. The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which ...

    Lord Griffiths said that "a man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike". A concern that may be raised here is how far the principle of pre-emptive strikes can actually go.

  2. Recognition Of Necessity

    Necessity being that a lesser of the two evils had been justified and for that lesser to take place a criminal offence may need to be existent.

  1. Free essay

    police powers

    The police can also enter a premise with out a warrant if it is in order to arrest a person named in an arrest warrant, or to arrest some one for an arrest able offence. This is set out in section 17 of PACE.

  2. Nina runs a burger bar. She puts up a sign in the window saying ...

    Simester and Sullivan describe the failure to replicate the Section 2 defence as 'regrettable'. The Ghosh test is both subjective, did the defendant know she was being dishonest, and objective, "according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people was what was done dishonest".

  1. A2 Law-making off without payment from a taxi.

    The defendant was obliged to pay the amount due. But in the scenario the defendant clearly didn?t pay the fee as it clearly stated that he runs away before paying for the journey. We must then see whether or not the mens rea has been fulfilled. Firstly we have to ask whether the d was dishonest.

  2. Critically discuss the Labour Governments record of crime control since coming to power in ...

    in the criminal justice system is clearly an important prerequisite for an effective system, and the BCS is thus effective in this way in helping to shape policy decisions. As well as people?s attitudes to crime and towards the criminal justice system, including the police and the courts, the BCS

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work