National Trust land

[Moonraker]

moonraker, i am almost certain that the law in scotland has indeed been changed to allow fires now as welll as camping

there is a thread here somewhere where the links are available

Tant

I see we cross posted. I will leave it here anyhow as there is some more info

Tant, from the Scottish Outdoor Access Code as it is at present online lighting fires is allowed under the new Act. I just quoted from the MCofS site that bit. Obviously they were successful in getting it altered but it still does restrict fires in some places as does other remaining legislation. To clarify, from the Code:

Lighting fires
Wherever possible, use a stove rather than light an open fire. If you do wish to light an open fire, keep it small, under control and supervised – fires that get out of control can cause major damage, for which you might be liable. Never light an open fire during prolonged dry periods or in areas such as forests, woods, farmland, or on peaty ground or near to buildings or in cultural heritage sites where damage can be easily caused. Heed all advice at times of high risk. Remove all traces of an open fire before you le

It also notes under supporting legislation several exceptions to this:

Lighting fires
Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 (Section 3)
You are guilty of an offence if you light a fire:
•*on or near any private road
•*on enclosed or cultivated land
•*in or near any plantation
without the consent of the owner or land manager.

Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (section 56)
It is an offence to lay or light a fire in a public place so as to endanger any other person, or to give reasonable cause for alarm or annoyance, or so as to endanger any property.

So I assume this legislation is still in effect.

It notes restrictions in heritage sites:

Cultural heritage sites
Access rights do not apply to buildings or to other cultural heritage sites where a legitimate entry charge is levied. In other cases, such as many unsupervised historic or archaeological sites, access rights apply. These sites can be of great value, though they might not always be obvious on the ground, so it is important to look after them. Follow any local byelaws, regulations or approved guidance asking you to modify your behaviour in order to protect a cultural heritage site. Leave the site as you find it by:§ taking care not to move, disturb, damage or deface any stones, walls, structures or other features;
not removing anything from it;
not lighting fires, camping or using metal detectors there;
not interfering with or entering any archaeological excavations.

It also confirms the continuance of existing rights on beaches:

Beaches and the foreshore
Access rights extend to beaches and the foreshore. Follow any local guidance aimed at reducing dune or machair erosion or at avoiding disturbance of nesting birds. Public rights on the foreshore will continue to exist, including shooting wildfowl, fishing for sea fish, lighting fires, beachcombing, swimming, playing and picnicking.

Full details can be found here:

The Scottish Outdoor Access Code

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 - Full Version

 

[Angus Og]

I’m sure that trespass in Scotland is a civil offence and not a criminal offence. Could be wrong thought. :?:

 

[Moonraker]

I’m sure that trespass in Scotland is a civil offence and not a criminal offence. Could be wrong thought. :?:

It is and it isn't Angus

To clarify, from:

http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_8.html

Trespass

It is a perpetual myth that there are no trespass laws in Scotland. Even before the recent Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which has been referred to in posts below, trespass has long been a delict (civil wrong) which is remediable by the remedies of interdict and damages. Trespassers may also be asked to leave the property, and if they do not comply, may be forcibly removed.

Furthermore certain types of trespass have been criminal since the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 was passed, an Act no-one has ever heard of. Section 3 makes it an offence for any person to lodge in any premises, or occupy or encamp on any land, being private property, without the consent of the owner or legal occupier. Admittedly this section envisages a degree of permanency which will not be present in every situation of trespass.

It looks like this Act has been amended in line with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Check the links above for details.

Some more info specific to Scotland here;

Is Trespass Illegal in Scotland ?

In English law trespass is a civil matter (where the landowner can claim damages for the act of trespass). However there are exceptions notably now in the Part V Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which conferred additional powers on the police and created new offences in connection with various forms of trespass, including:

From the CPS site

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_f.html

mass trespass

trespass by hunt saboteurs

trespass by squatters

nuisance caused by 'raves'.

The Act also introduced new powers to direct trespassers to leave land and amended existing legislation in relation to the use of violence to secure entry to premises.

Perhaps most relevant is:

Removing Trespasser From Land: Charging Practice

Section 61 CJPOA <Stones 2001 8-24900> enables a police officer to direct trespassers on land (who are there with the common purpose of residing there for any period) to leave the land where the occupier has taken steps to ask them to do so, and either

they have damaged the land; or

they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, her or his family, employees or agents; or

between them they have 6 or more vehicles on the land.

Failure to obey a direction to leave or returning to the land as a trespasser within 3 months is an offence.

Section 62 provides a power for the police to seize vehicles of persons failing to comply with a direction under Section 61.

This then gives the police criminal powers in certain situations if someone behaves in this way.

Also potentially:

Aggravated Trespass: Charging Practice

Trespassers on land in the open air who engage in conduct intended to obstruct or disrupt lawful activity on that land or who intend to intimidate those taking part in that lawful activity commit an offence under Section 68 CJPOA. <Stones 2001 8-24907>.

The offence is capable of being committed by hunt saboteurs or motorway protesters or any protesters who are trespassing on land in the open air, but it is not formally limited to protest groups.

Any activity falling within conduct described in Section 68(1) is covered. Trespassing on land in the open air does not, in itself, amount to the commission of the offence: there must be trespassing on land in the open air together with the subsection (1) additional conduct. It seems that mere presence as a trespasser will not be sufficient. The requirement appears to be for conduct over and above the act of trespassing although a person taking up a position which obstructs the lawful activity may be sufficient to make out the offence.

This additional conduct is anything. There is no requirement that the additional conduct should itself be a crime, so activities such as playing a musical instrument or taking a photograph could fall within "anything". What limits the scope of anything is the intention that must accompany it: the intention to obstruct, disrupt or deter by intimidating. Ramblers for instance, may trespass, and may disrupt a lawful activity (for example, rounding up sheep) by doing so, but unless they have the relevant intention, they do not commit the offence. Proof of this specific intent is necessary for conviction. It is no defence that the intent was not fulfilled.

Section 69 enables the senior police officer to order persons to leave the land if he or she reasonably believe they are committing, have committed, or intend to commit the offence of aggravated trespass. A person disobeying such a direction or returning to the land as a trespasser within 3 months commits an offence.

I am not saying anyone here would do this just pointing out the legal powers the police now have when things get nasty.

In fact it states specifically on camping etc:

Removal Of Unauthorised Campers And Other Persons From Land: Charging Practice

Enforcement of Sections 77/80 CJPOA will be a local authority responsibility and will be of little concern to The CPS.

I am unsure exactly how and what role the local authority could play? But it shows that this is a situation unlikely to involve any sort of prosecution unless the situation escalates.

 

[Angus Og]

Thanks for clarification and work put in to that. Guess I’ll just need to stick to the places I know. The big white bit on the left is Ben Nevis the estate actually owns the bottom half of the mountain. :roll:

http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/page_cache/large_maps.php?cid=in&f=mamore_map.jpg

 

[Tantalus]

well the tone of the law suggests, in scotland at least, that responsible behaviour will be tolerated

litter , firelighting in plantations or crops are not considered responsible but the rest seem fairly straightforward

despite such delightfully verbose and incomprehensible legisltation

Tant

 

[Moonraker]

well the tone of the law suggests, in scotland at least, that responsible behaviour will be tolerated

litter , firelighting in plantations or crops are not considered responsible but the rest seem fairly straightforward

despite such delightfully verbose and incomprehensible legisltation

Tant

Isn't all legislation verbose and incomprehensible ):

 

[R-Bowskill]

What makes this whole subject even more complicated is that you cannot actually own "land", what you can own is "property" which is different rights in the land. And all property is ultimately vested in the state (in the case of the UK the crown). Otherwise it wouldn't be able to enforce it's laws or collect taxes on things done there so effectively the land would be outside the state.

Different people can own different rights to the same land, so if you're planing to 'buy' yourself some land to do bushcraft you need to be aware of whether you're getting the rights you need. If you plan to fish a stream or pond you'd better have the fishing rights, likewise extracting water, gathering wood for fuel and lots of other bushcraft activities have rights which the 'landowner' may or may not actually posess.

In the same way, when asking permission to do something, if the person who you ask doesn't own the right to do it any permission is of doubtful use. It might not bother a tennant sheep farmer if you do a bit of fishing but the syndicate who've just paid a few thousand for the fishing rights are likely to take a different view of things.

As mu dad used to say..."the only land you can call yours is the six foot they bury you in"

 

[Adi007]

Nah - I'm afraid not. I don't claim to be setting an example to anyone. Assuming other folks can't take responsibility for their own actions is patronising to them in the extreme.

BTW Kath - I know we strayed from the thread title but conversations do this - I think it is healthy and interesting to have wide ranging discussion about such basic fundamental (philosophical rather than political) issues.

Cheers
Flux

When it's your own forum Fluxus you can decide what you want discussed there and what goes beyond the boundaries of discussion. When it's not, you have to listen to those who host the discussion. If I come to your forum I will obey your rules and regs and the wishes of your moderators and admins.

Trespass IS a civil issue and further discussions on trying to justify law breaking will not be tolerated. Same goes for those who feel that they can browbeat those looking after the forum. I suggest that anyone else who wants to argue steps away from their computer and take a deep breath before posting ...

Thanks to all those who have kept things on topic here.

 

[arctic hobo]

As regards my local NT land, I'm fine so long as I don't make a habit of it then (or get caught). It's in England and it's nowhere near 400m high, so I don't qualify for any special laws. Sounds like my local farmers will be getting visits. Thank you to everyone who has replied to my query :biggthump