Responses to proposals and strategies

Response to unauthorised encampment consultation

Central government asked us to comment on their unauthorised encampment consultation in February 2020.

Our comments

Questions, our response and our explanation:

To what extent do you agree or disagree that knowingly entering land without the landowner’s permission should only be made a criminal offence if it is for the purpose of residing on it?
Our response: Strongly agree
Explanation: Think it should be an offence if they enter without permission and occupy in any way
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the act of knowingly entering land without the landowner’s permission should only be made a criminal offence if it is for the purpose of residing on it with vehicles?
Our response: Strongly disagree
Explanation: Think it should be an offence if they enter without permission and occupy in any way
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the landowner or representatives of the landowner should take reasonable steps to ask persons occupying their land to remove themselves and their possessions before occupation of the land can be considered a criminal offence?
Our response: Disagree
Explanation: What would be reasonable steps? This may be difficult if landowner is fearful or has been threatened in any way. Many landowners would not feel comfortable approaching unknown people on their land without support from police officers
To what extent do you agree or disagree that a criminal offence can only be committed when the following conditions have been met?
1. The encampment prevents people entitled to use the land from making use of it:
  Our response: Disagree
  Explanation: Think it should be an offence if they enter without permission and occupy in any way
2. The encampment is causing or is likely to cause damage to the land or amenities:
  Our response: Agree
  Explanation: Think it should be an offence if they enter without permission and occupy in any way
3. Those on the encampment have demanded money from the landowner to vacate the land:
  Our response: Strongly disagree
  Explanation: Think it should be an offence if they enter without permission and occupy in any way
4. Those on the encampment are involved or are likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour:
  Our response: Strongly disagree
  Explanation: Think it should be an offence if they enter without permission and occupy in any way. It would be difficult if not impossible to assess who might be likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour
What other conditions not covered in the above should we consider?
No response
Explanation: Think it should be an offence if they enter without permission and occupy in any way
To what extent do you agree or disagree that police should be given the power to direct trespassers to suitable authorised sites in a neighbouring local authority area?
Our response: Strongly agree
Explanation: Agree – however this would rely on enough authorised sites to be available within a reasonable distance
Should this be subject to conditions around agreements being in place between local authorities?
Our response: Agree
Explanation: Police should be able to direct trespassers to the nearest authorised site which has spaces without reference to local authority boundaries. However if this is not possible I think that there should be agreements in place to ensure this is managed in a reasonable and effective way
Should there be a maximum distance that a trespasser can be directed across?
Our response: Yes
Explanation: If yes, what distance should that be? If it will rely on local authorities cooperating a geographical boundary may be easier as then you can work agreements up within the county
Should there be any other conditions that should be considered when directing a trespasser across neighbouring authorities?
No response
Explanation: If yes, what should these be?
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the period of time in which trespassers directed from land would be unable to return should be increased from three months to twelve months?
Our response: Agree
Explanation: Agree
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the number of vehicles needing to be involved in an unauthorised encampment before police powers can be exercised should be lowered from six to two vehicles?
Our response: Agree
Explanation: Agree
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the police should be granted the power to remove trespassers from land that forms part of the highway?
Our response: Agree
Explanation: Agree
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the police should be granted the power to seize property, including vehicles, from trespassers who are on land with the purpose of residing on it?
Our response: Agree
Explanation: Agree
Should the police be able to seize the property of: i) Anyone whom they suspect to be trespassing on land with the purpose of residing on it; ii) Anyone they arrest for trespassing on land with the purpose of residing on it; or iii) Anyone convicted of trespassing on land with the purpose of residing on it?
Our response: Agree
Explanation: Anyone convicted of trespassing on land with the purpose of residing on it
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed amendments to sections 61 and 62A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contained in this consultation are sufficient measures to tackle the public disorder issues which are associated with unauthorised encampments without the requirement for introducing specific powers that criminalise unauthorised encampments?
Our response: Agree
Explanation: Agree
Do you expect that the proposed amendments to sections 61 and 62A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contained in this consultation would have a positive or negative impact on the health or educational outcomes of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities?
Our response: Neither positive nor negative impact
Explanation: If so, do you have any evidence to support this view, and/or suggestions for what could be done to mitigate or prevent any negative impacts?
Do you expect that criminalising unauthorised encampments would have a positive or negative impact on the health or educational outcomes of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities?
Our response: Neither positive nor negative impact
Explanation: If so, do you have any evidence to support this view, and/or suggestions for what could be done to mitigate or prevent any negative impacts? If there are enough authorised camps to direct/ redirect to the impact will be lessened, otherwise the impact of someone having a criminal record due to no authorised camps being available may impact on their life chances
Do you have any other comments to make on the issue of unauthorised encampments not specifically addressed by any of the questions above?
No response
Explanation: The police powers are a positive step but do the police have enough resources to be robust in the enforcement of these powers. As we know they are already stretched beyond capacity

Last updated: 04/01/2024 11:22

Was this page helpful?

Yes Yes, but No

How can we improve this page?

To contact us about a service, please use our online contact form.