Evictions on the River Thames

[mark99]

The landowner (Watercompany) are evicting persons off their property whom are there without permission or authority. It is reasoable to assume there may be a breach of the peace during eviction or a situation escalating out of control hence they requested the aid of the police to effect their actions.

 

Not much different to what can happens on land.

 

ETA from paper:

 

""As part of the ongoing process to address this issue, Richmond Council has worked closely with the Environment Agency and Marine Police Unit to carry out similar activities to evict illegally moored vessels on the Thames."

 

"Councillor Pamela Fleming, cabinet member for environment, said: "The council supports this co-ordinated approach which should bring about the removal of illegally moored vessels on the Thames in Hampton".

 

No mention of the police acting on their own.

Edited August 22, 2014 by mark99

[NigelMoore]

That would be in order, but it is not the picture painted by the article. Not that journalists should be read as gospel of course.

[smileypete]

 

A most excellent suggestion in my opinion. I've made the same suggestion on here several times here over the last couple of years. Each time been univerally attacked and condemned for it...

 

Such is the lot of a forward thinker

 

Nothing stopping you thinking 'forwardly' and buying an old bote just to scrap it.

 

cheers, Pete.

~smpt~

Edited August 22, 2014 by smileypete

[cereal tiller]

 

A most excellent suggestion in my opinion. I've made the same suggestion on here several times here over the last couple of years. Each time been univerally attacked and condemned for it...

 

Such is the lot of a forward thinker

 

 

MtB

It is not a correct statement that you have been Universally attacked,i never criticised you!

 

May i take the now take the opportunity to do so?

Edited August 22, 2014 by cereal tiller

[steven wilkinson]

 

Nothing stopping you thinking 'forwardly' and buying an old bote just to scrap it.

 

cheers, Pete.

~smpt~

and if its really old, you might be able to keep its engine to add to your collection.

[mark99]

and if its really old, you might be able to keep its engine to add to your collection.

 

 

MtB is trying to convince himself to finally scrap those two old worn out botes and replace with a new Hudson.

[MtB]

It is not a correct statement that you have been Universally attacked,i never criticised you!

 

 

Ok, so we get into semantics. I should have said 'no-one supported or agreed with me. All the responses I received condemned my brilliant idea'!

 

Just like now

 

I also posed the question "how many boats will it take for the canals to be considered 'full'?"

 

Again, no thoughtful or considered answers AFAICR

 

MtB

[John Williamson 1955]

 

Ok, so we get into semantics. I should have said 'no-one supported or agreed with me. All the responses I received condemned my brilliant idea'!

 

Just like now

 

I also posed the question "how many boats will it take for the canals to be considered 'full'?"

 

Again, no thoughtful or considered answers AFAICR

 

MtB

Well, fully utilised is when there is always a boat in every lock going either up or down, with no locks being filled or emptied just because they're set the wrong way. One definition of a full canal could be when there are no mooring spaces left when all the boats are tied up, allowing for breasting up when there's room.

 

Errr.... Sorry, my serious head got away with me. A full canal is when you can walk from one side or end to the other without using the towpath.

[John V]

 

Ok, so we get into semantics. I should have said 'no-one supported or agreed with me. All the responses I received condemned my brilliant idea'!

 

Just like now

 

I also posed the question "how many boats will it take for the canals to be considered 'full'?"

 

Again, no thoughtful or considered answers AFAICR

 

MtB

 

I think part of the problem might be you are not asking the right questions ....possibly it should be phrased....how many boats that are actually used to navigate will it take for the canals to be considered full because if the moorings that I am on are anything to go by not much more than 10% are used a lot maybe another 10% sometimes and being generous another 10% rarely but that still leaves 70% that never move and many of those never even have anyone come down to check them from one year to the next!

[lexicon]

 

From the facts provided it is unclear, but I think there are definitely questions about the potential abuse of police powers that need asking in this instance. Trespass, as such, is not a crime, and is one of our most important civil liberties.

 

Without facts we can simply speculate. It would be interesting to find out more about the dialogue between police and boaters.

 

Otherwise what is the logical (if a little far fetched) result? The police moving on overstayers on visitor moorings?

 

to add: the word 'illegal' should be used with more care. If something is a breach of civil (as opposed to criminal) law then I feel it needs to be tested in court before such lazy labels are applied

are you serious ???

so if someone decided to camp on your front lawn or the back deck if your boat you wouldn't see it perhaps necessary to utilise the police to assist their removal? After all trespass isn't a crime right, so why call the police?

 

i don't think there has been any abuse of police powers in this case or similar cases at all.

and to use terms like "private paramilitary army" is a tad far fetched.

[phill]

are you serious ???

 

After all trespass isn't a crime right, so why call the police?

Completely.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout

The situations or the circumstances may not be analogous but the principle is vitally important.

 

 

Trespass is a civil crime. The police have no jurisdiction in a free state.

[Guest]

The police have no jurisdiction in a free state.

That is a pretty bold statement. I am genuinely curious as to the basis you have made it on.

Edited August 22, 2014 by The Dog House

[Mr Badger]

Trespass is a civil crime. The police have no jurisdiction in a free state.

 

Simple trespass is a civil wrong or tort. There isn't any such thing as a civil crime. If a matter is criminal it isn't civil and if it is civil it isn't criminal.

 

The police should not interfere in a civil matter but may attend to prevent a breach of the peace.

[lexicon]

Completely.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout

The situations or the circumstances may not be analogous but the principle is vitally important.

 

 

Trespass is a civil crime. The police have no jurisdiction in a free state.

oh please.

 

a reference to a 1932 trespass on what sounds like a barren hillside is hardly the same as modern trespass in what could well be someone's home.

 

so will you answer my previous question? Would you be happy to let anybody that wishes place themselves in ur property/garden/boat as they wish? (given trespass is their civil liberty) and leave them there till a court settled the civil matter? No matter what damage or nuisance they caused?

[phill]

oh please.

 

is hardly the same as modern trespass in what could well be someone's home ?

Someone's home?

 

Oh please.

That is a pretty bold statement. I am genuinely curious as to the basis you have made it on.

Mr badger explains it better than me.

[Guest]

Someone's home?

Oh please.

 

Mr badger explains it better than me.

No he explains why the police don't normally take an interest in civil matters.

 

I was more taken by your statement about them having no jurisdiction in a 'free state.', whatever one of those is.

[Captain Zim]

The landowner (Watercompany) are evicting persons off their property whom are there without permission or authority. It is reasoable to assume there may be a breach of the peace during eviction or a situation escalating out of control hence they requested the aid of the police to effect their actions.

 

Not much different to what can happens on land.

 

ETA from paper:

 

""As part of the ongoing process to address this issue, Richmond Council has worked closely with the Environment Agency and Marine Police Unit to carry out similar activities to evict illegally moored vessels on the Thames."

 

"Councillor Pamela Fleming, cabinet member for environment, said: "The council supports this co-ordinated approach which should bring about the removal of illegally moored vessels on the Thames in Hampton".

 

No mention of the police acting on their own.

I think this is the most likely explanation. Rather than the sudden and rather unexpected discovery that the police have become super keen to get involved in such things. I'm not knocking the old bill but I'd be very surprised if they are doing all this themselves. They've got better things to be doing.

[Mr Badger]

so will you answer my previous question? Would you be happy to let anybody that wishes place themselves in ur property/garden/boat as they wish? (given trespass is their civil liberty) and leave them there till a court settled the civil matter? No matter what damage or nuisance they caused?

 

My answer, I would absolutely not be happy. But trespass is not "their civil liberty". It is a civil wrong or tort. I don't have to leave them there until a court settles the matter. I can ask them to leave and if they refuse I can use reasonable force to remove them. In that case I would ask the police to attend so that if the trespassers resisted they would be arrested for violence and with police witnesses they would be unable to allege that my use of force was excessive. Damage or nuisance might well be criminal acts which would be matters for the police.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Mr Badger

[NigelMoore]

Would you be happy to let anybody that wishes place themselves in ur property/garden/boat as they wish? (given trespass is their civil liberty) and leave them there till a court settled the civil matter? No matter what damage or nuisance they caused?

 

I hardly think anyone is going to be happy about people trespassing on their property, even less on/in their home. The difficulty can be figuring the limits to what steps you are entitled in law to take to remedy the violation of your rights.

 

Boat owners/dwellers are in fact better situated in this regard than landlubbers, because trespass on a UK ship in a UK port IS a crime, and if the intruder does not obey the master’s request to leave, he can be placed under arrest on the spot and detained by the master. The marine police in such an instance would not only be empowered but obliged to come and remove the offender’s person, for them to face charges relating to the summary offence.

 

They could not legitimately do any such thing relating to ordinary trespass. ‘Aggravated trespass’ is a crime, but requires active intervention with other people’s legitimate activity on the land [it was originally drafted to deal with hunt saboteurs and the like].

 

The course Badger suggests is fine, so long as you are prepared to and are capable of carrying it out, and are prepared to compensate the police for their time if requested - they do not automatically come out under such circumstances otherwise, and often will refuse to attend unless and until the breach of the peace or other offence has already occurred. Even BW/CaRT cannot rely on being able to have police attendance as and when they would like with minor incidents.

[Mr Badger]

I've only found a trespasser asleep in my front garden once in about 30 years. As he was unrousable I called the police and they came straight away. But I think that was for the man's welfare. It turned out he was a drunk sleeping it off but it could have been a medical event. They managed to wake him up and he staggered off down the road.

[PaulR]

 

That section relates pretty specifically to encampment on dry land though, although it could conceivably be stretched to apply. The boats, however, have a right to be on the water provided they are registered [or do not need to be], what they do not have is any right to attach to the land [in order to be able to remain stationary in position], whether that is to the riverbed or to the riverbank. The other ‘dry land’ option in certain circumstances would be applying the offence of “aggravated trespass”, which is not dissimilar to the legislation quoted.

 

Snip...

 

I'm just a little curious about your repeated use of the phrase 'dry land' and where this comes from? There seems to be many references both in statute and case law to 'land' but not 'dry land'.

 

I believe that the accepted defintion of 'land' in the Criminal courts is that the same as in the Law of Property Act 1925, and I was taught that, 'land' includes land covered with water: Have I missed something? Whilst it would be true to say that S61 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is 'usually' used for occupation on so called 'dry land' simply because any sort of dwelling, temporary or otherwise, is more easily constructed on terra firma. However if a group of people who meet the conditions in the act, were to build tree houses in trees, they would still be liable. Should these trees be planted in a bog or lake on the land with the base of their trunks underwater, then again it's not very hard to imagine that the act still applies. If this is the case then what difference does it make whether these dwellings are above the lake but in boats or other dwellings in the middle of the lake? I would contest, none.

 

In this case with the River Thames, it's probable that the land owner has Riparian Rights and owns the land up to the centre of the river bed. If these people were in boats, which are directly against the bank and attached to the bank or are away and attached to the river bed, they occupy that owner's land, and if the conditions set in S61 are met, then they are liable under the act and would have to move when asked by the police or face arrest and possible prosecution.

 

Of course all this is pure conjecture as the only people who know what happened and why are those in possession of the full facts, i.e. the people on the boats, their legal reps, Reading Council, the police etc. I'd be very suprised if they all decide to make contributions here so we could all make ours minds up after hearing their side(s) of the story.

 

In regards to 'Civil Trespass' the police still have a common law duty to prevent a breach of the peace and assist owners eject trespassers where the owners are not physically capable of doing it themselves. (this does not include 'Criminal Trespass' such as 'squatters', 'raves', etc)

 

 

 

 

(Edited because I can't spell 'difference' correctly this time in the morning)

Edited August 23, 2014 by PaulR

[Ronniesonic]

 

From the facts provided it is unclear, but I think there are definitely questions about the potential abuse of police powers that need asking in this instance. Trespass, as such, is not a crime, and is one of our most important civil liberties.

 

Without facts we can simply speculate. It would be interesting to find out more about the dialogue between police and boaters.

 

Otherwise what is the logical (if a little far fetched) result? The police moving on overstayers on visitor moorings?

to add: the word 'illegal' should be used with more care. If something is a breach of civil (as opposed to criminal) law then I feel it needs to be tested in court before such lazy labels are applied

 

Phill- I am now keen to find out more about what actually happend. Your post is very reasoned & despite what you perceive I am totally in favour of civil liberties. I suppose the central debate is about the boundaries of liberty & the interpretation thereof, when two sides see a situation differently.

As you quite rightly point out, we can only speculate without facts.

 

 

I do find it very beneficial to read the 'legal' posts from the likes of youself, Nigel & Mayallid. I have learned from the collective points made.

[Mike Todd]

Ok, so we get into semantics. I should have said 'no-one supported or agreed with me. All the responses I received condemned my brilliant idea'!

 

Just like now

 

I also posed the question "how many boats will it take for the canals to be considered 'full'?"

 

Again, no thoughtful or considered answers AFAICR

 

MtB

It is a serious issue, one which CRT and planners have to consider whenever an application is made to open a new marina. However, right now this is a local/regional issue as some places are more crowded than others.

 

This season is not a good time to expect rational debate as the drop in active boats has all but eliminated the queuing hot spots as far as we have seen. But no doubt it will return - either that or the whole system becomes economically unsustainable. At that point it is possible that every place still retaining water will become a squa for those desperately seeking somewhere to live, no matter what.

 

Older boats only become a real issue when they fail to meet regulatory standards. Either they provide substandard living space or they are abandoned and cause a hazard.

 

In either case, I would have thought that (after sorting out the mooring issues) CRT moved on to enforcement of BSS, or whatever, and insurance, just as with vehicles on the highway. 'Old' boats will cease to be a problem when the cost of hanging on to them exceeds the penalty. This is how cars end up being scrapped. New boat builders might also think about a trade in scheme to take boats out of the market.

[NigelMoore]

 

I'm just a little curious about your repeated use of the phrase 'dry land' and where this comes from? There seems to be many references both in statute and case law to 'land' but not 'dry land'.

 

I believe that the accepted defintion of 'land' in the Criminal courts is that the same as in the Law of Property Act 1925, and I was taught that, 'land' includes land covered with water: Have I missed something?

 

It is just my own way of distinguishing two sets of conditions for the sake of clarity – it is not a legislative term. You are right that land also includes land covered with water – but the trespass issue alters where the right of navigation enters the picture.

 

The Public Right of Navigation as defined in the Transport Act 1968 include the right to keep AND use a boat on the water, and as the Thames Conservancy Acts made clear, those are distinct rights. [The TC Act demanded that all boats using the Thames be registered, but if the boat was simply kept moored at the bank, then it escaped the requirement. That situation obtained right up until the specific amendments of the 2010 Inland Waterways Order.]

 

So although possession of land under English law includes to the centre of the earth and to the heavens above, such that mere occupation of space above or below the land will ordinarily be trespass, where there is a right for a boat to float on the water [which is NOT owned by anyone], the mere occupation of that space cannot be trespass – the trespass then, can only occur upon contact with the land covered with water [although momentary contact in the course of navigation may be permissable].

 

The situation is not the same with the air above the land. Mere occupation of that space even without attachment to the land would still be trespass, whether ‘in flight’ or not [a bullet shot across land is a trespass]. It is only the action of s.76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 that enables a limited right of ‘air navigation’ across property.

 

For boats to remain in position, of course - as you describe - they must be attached to land, but the land to which they attach may or may not be to the land over which the boats are kept. I know how ludicrously pedantic that will sound to many, but the distinction is important to the question of trespass where the PRN is in play. If different, the riverbed owner cannot claim trespass for so long as the attachment is to land [i.e. the riverbank] in the ownership of another. [i appreciate that this is a contentious issue.]

 

Where no right of navigation exists at all, of course, then it is trespass to be on the water without permission of the owner of the land covered with water.

 

I hope this explains my ‘hair-splitting’ vocabulary. Of course we don’t know the specific circumstances involved in the article’s described situation, but that does not make it any less a profitable exercise to discuss the issues involved in a speculative scenario – whether those apply or not to the described events. I had already acknowledged that the quoted section prompting my response was potentially applicable at a stretch.

 

[NigelMoore]

Postscript: It could be said that the right of navigation is a perpetual public ‘easement’ over the riverbed, and the land covered in water where PRN’s exist is taken subject to such easements. Those can be removed only by Act of Parliament.

 

This is what Josie Rowland came up against, when she tried to prevent boats entering on what she considered to be ‘private water’ on a stretch of the Thames where she owned the riverbed. She sued the Environment Agency when they proposed to remove signs barring boats from entering ‘her’ stretch of the original Thames course.

 

“Held -

Claim dismissed. Public rights of navigation had since time immemorial at common law existed over the Thames including Hedsor Water. Not only did the relevant legislation declare that these rights extended to any and every part of the river; at common law the rights could not be lost by disuse. The rights over Hedsor Water could only have been extinguished by legislation, and none of the relevant legislation conferred express or implied power on the navigation authorities to extinguish the rights.”

 

As a result, even her last-ditch stand relying on her “Legitimate Expectations” when purchasing the property, failed. The preservation by the relevant authority of the public right could not be held to be a breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention. The land could only be taken subject to the public easement over it, and no power vested in the navigation authority to extinguish that. She was unable even to object to temporary mooring of the boats to the riverbed for "a reasonable time" -

 

Thames Conservancy Act, 1932. s.79(2)

 

"The right of navigation in this section described shall be deemed to include a right to anchor moor or remain stationary for a reasonable time in the ordinary course of pleasure navigation subject to such restrictions as the Conservators may from time to time by byelaws determine arid the Conservators shall make special regulations for the prevention of annoyance to any occupier of a riparian residence by reason of the loitering or delay of any house-boat or launch and for the prevention of the pollution of the Thames by the sewage of any house-boat or launch: Provided that nothing in this section or in any byelaw made thereunder shall be construed to deprive any riparian owner of any legal rights in the soil or bed of the Thames which he may now possess or of any legal remedies which he may now possess for the prevention of anchoring mooring loitering or delay of any vessel or to give any riparian owner any right as against the public which he did not possess before the seventeenth day of August one thousand eight hundred and ninety four to exclude any person from entering upon or navigating any backwater creek channel bay inlet or other water."

 

Josie Rowland could prove no relevant rights attached to Hedsor Water prior to 1894.

 

No such public easements apply either in statute or common law to land NOT covered in water, hence my use of the non-legal term 'dry land'. The only broadly similar easement respecting land not covered by water, as said above, covers the use of aircraft in transit, and that by way of statute only.