Trespassing And Photography

Ramalama said:
Buy a drone camera.

Problem solved :)
Click to expand...
I think there might be issues flying a drone low through someone's private property and near structures too :)
 
J40ADF said:
There are some derelict buildings and scrub land on my route to and from work.
I parked up outside
Walked through the open gate
Wandered around snapping
Didn't die!

JFDI
Click to expand...
:LOL::ROFLMAO:
 
J40ADF said:
There are some derelict buildings and scrub land on my route to and from work.
I parked up outside
Walked through the open gate
Wandered around snapping
Didn't die!

JFDI
Click to expand...
This ^

Sounds like most of my urban exploring except I normally park some distance away.........
 
I think the OP was more directed at private property, scrubland is a different issue?
 
Check street map uk at the 1:25,000 scale. There may be a footpath rubbing past it you are unaware of. One you could deviate very slightly from...
 
Yes. It's civil trespass so you're not breaking the law. I do it all the time.
 
TheAndyA said:
What about 'right to roam', you may be fine just going.
Click to expand...

That only applies to OpenAccess land in England.

Just look like you should be there anyway and go and take pictures. Act dumb if anyone challenges you.
 
RADDERS76 said:
There is some land by where I live, just off a busy main road with what looks like a couple of derelict buildings on and with no fencing or gates. The buildings look quite interesting from passing in the car. I have no idea who owns the land.

I'm tempted to park up tomorrow and take a few pics. Would you do the same?

Paul
Click to expand...

Yes, I would if the buildings looked interesting enough and the light was suitable. My concern in situations like this is where to safely park. I've sometimes been in the same situation and have driven miles without finding a parking spot.
 
Yes. Obstruction caused by bad parking is much more of an issue than just going onto someone's land.


Steve.
 
odd jim said:
Some places in England would also involve guns too, especially farmers fields! And they could do more than "ask you politely to leave" - a landowner can use reasonable force in defence of his property, so depending on the circumstances, bear that in mind :)

I'd certainly be accompanied by one of my rifles if I saw someone skulking around my fields late at night :), and I'm not even a farmer!
Click to expand...

Pointing a gun at someone is not using reasonable force.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Pointing a gun at someone is not using reasonable force.
Click to expand...
99% of the time it wouldn't be, but It depends on the circumstances (but countering perceived lethal force with lethal force is lawful, but in these circumstances it would have to significantly escalate for that to be relevant). A landowner can legally carry a lawfully held gun (air weapon, live fire or shotgun) on their own land which was my point. As I said, if I thought someone was intruding on my land acting sus, I'd have a .22 air rifle on me at the very least :)

But the main point about use of force wasn't really about guns, I was stating that a landowner can use reasonable force to protect his property in reply to another poster who stated all they can do is politely ask you to leave. This means in reality they could forcefully eject you from their land, rather than just ask politely.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
99% of the time it wouldn't be, but It depends on the circumstances (but countering perceived lethal force with lethal force is lawful, but in these circumstances it would have to significantly escalate for that to be relevant). A landowner can legally carry a lawfully held gun (air weapon, live fire or shotgun) on their own land which was my point. As I said, if I thought someone was intruding on my land acting sus, I'd have a .22 air rifle on me at the very least :)

But the main point about use of force wasn't really about guns, I was stating that a landowner can use reasonable force to protect his property in reply to another poster who stated all they can do is politely ask you to leave. This means in reality they could forcefully eject you from their land, rather than just ask politely.
Click to expand...



English law permits one person to kill another in self-defence using "reasonable force" but not "lethal force" but then it is up to the jury to determine if those actions were reasonable.

Quite a few people have found out the hard way and received life custodial sentences in what they perceived to be reasonable which was proved beyond all reasonable doubt to be unlawful.

Case in point, a landowner R-V- Martin who thought he was entitled to use reasonable force and shot a burglar in the back and killed him as he was egressing from his premises.

Going on to your point about using reasonable force, yes you are correct but what is reasonable force ? It can't be defined, but it depends on the circumstances and may be tested in court later. That said, as a landowner you still have a lawful 'duty of care' to trespassers.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
English law permits one person to kill another in self-defence using "reasonable force" but not "lethal force" but then it is up to the jury to determine if those actions were reasonable.

Quite a few people have found out the hard way and received life custodial sentences in what they perceived to be reasonable which was proved beyond all reasonable doubt to be unlawful.

Case in point, a landowner R-V- Martin who thought he was entitled to use reasonable force and shot a burglar in the back and killed him as he was egressing from his premises.

Going on to your point about using reasonable force, yes you are correct but what is reasonable force ? It can't be defined, but it depends on the circumstances and may be tested in court later. That said, as a landowner you still have a lawful 'duty of care' to trespassers.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of the law but you're interpreting it slightly strangely? Under what is reasonable, lethal force is part of lawfully defined definitions and conflict resolution used by police forces

And how do you kill someone without using lethal force?

R v Tony Martin, he shot him in the back whilst running away, so clearly wasn't posing a threat, so even punching him wouldn't have been reasonable.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I'm well aware of the law but you're interpreting it slightly strangely? Under what is reasonable, lethal force is part of lawfully defined definitions and conflict resolution used by police forces

And how do you kill someone without using lethal force?

R v Tony Martin, he shot him in the back whilst running away, so clearly wasn't posing a threat, so even punching him wouldn't have been reasonable.
Click to expand...
By using reasonable force and misjudging events. It is down to intent. If you intend to kill someone or behave recklessly in a way that is likely to kill them then it is lethal force. If you gently push someone and they fall over and break their neck, it is reasonable force.
 
john.margetts said:
By using reasonable force and misjudging events. It is down to intent. If you intend to kill someone or behave recklessly in a way that is likely to kill them then it is lethal force. If you gently push someone and they fall over and break their neck, it is reasonable force.
Click to expand...
It's not that clear. If you push someone and they break their neck it's still lethal force - they died as a direct result of the forced you used. You'd be on a manslaughter charge as opposed to a murder charge, that's the only difference and that's where the intent comes into it.

Going back to my previous post - lethal force can be reasonable depending on the circumstances.

This is a bit off topic now!
 
Last edited:
Land Registry will give you the legal owners name.

Otherwise, if its not your land you have no right to be there.

And regards surveyors/arcitects and other professionals in derelict buildings, they will almost certainly have a better knowledge than you of the potential problems and risks.

They are also likely to have someone else who is aware of their location, tracked or otherwise, and a lack of response will initiate action.

You sneaking on to take a few photos will not.

And as some people here seem happy to trespass, which is still a civil offence, so farmer Martin happy to use his twelve bore.

If the trespasser/thief had not been running away, the outcome might have been different.

Speak to other farmers and there is a lot of sympathy for the actions, legal or not, given the amount of theft and damage etc that occurs in rural areas.
 
shreds said:
Land Registry will give you the legal owners name.

Otherwise, if its not your land you have no right to be there.

And regards surveyors/arcitects and other professionals in derelict buildings, they will almost certainly have a better knowledge than you of the potential problems and risks.

They are also likely to have someone else who is aware of their location, tracked or otherwise, and a lack of response will initiate action.

You sneaking on to take a few photos will not.

And as some people here seem happy to trespass, which is still a civil offence, so farmer Martin happy to use his twelve bore.

If the trespasser/thief had not been running away, the outcome might have been different.

Speak to other farmers and there is a lot of sympathy for the actions, legal or not, given the amount of theft and damage etc that occurs in rural areas.
Click to expand...
And that was my point earlier, the landowner doesn't know your intentions and you don't know what they might need / be trying to protect.
 
odd jim said:
I'm well aware of the law but you're interpreting it slightly strangely?

How do you kill someone without using lethal force?
Click to expand...

The law is complex but specific . Yes killing someone is 'lethal' by definition but nobody can use 'lethal force' only 'reasonable force' Even Armed Police Officers if they shoot someone dead still have to be using 'reasonable force' and that is defined in the Court. If it is proven that reasonable force is used then it's justifiable homicide. Cameron has argued that Police Officers should be allowed to use 'Lethal force' on terrorists, a fact that I agree.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
The law is complex but specific . Yes killing someone is 'lethal' by definition but nobody can use 'lethal force' only 'reasonable force' Even Armed Police Officers if they shoot someone dead still have to be using 'reasonable force' and that is defined in the Court. If it is proven that reasonable force is used then it's justifiable homicide. Cameron has argued that Police Officers should be allowed to use 'Lethal force' on terrorists, a fact that I agree.
Click to expand...
Police officers can use "lethal force" on terrorists already. I think you're over confusing this. By definition, if a terrorist is involved in an active shooting, 'reasonable force' would be as high as lethal force.

Lethal force is the top (obviously) *defined* level of force used by police under the conflict resolution model taught to all UK police officers. This model starts with the mere presence of a police officer to resolve conflict right up to lethal force.

But like I say, too off topic now.
 
Last edited:
black5 said:
In the grand scheme of things who gives a crap, if we all lived by every minutiae written onto the statute books we'd never leave the front door. Im certainly not encouraging breaking the law but surely theres more important stuff in peoples lives than discussing this (face palm...............)
Click to expand...
Agreed. Someone's taken this well OT by misinterpreting the point of a post I wrote a few days ago :)
 
john.margetts said:
By using reasonable force and misjudging events. It is down to intent. If you intend to kill someone or behave recklessly in a way that is likely to kill them then it is lethal force. If you gently push someone and they fall over and break their neck, it is reasonable force.
Click to expand...

If it is proven that you've killed someone deliberately then that is Murder.

If you behave recklessly and kill them and break their neck in the way you describe above then that's for the Jury to decide. It may be Manslaughter but not necessarily. One again it is for the jury to determine if 'reasonable force' was used.

Your defence may be that it was a 'gentle push' but the injuries on the body may well tell another story, that the injuries were excessive or even post mortem.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
If it is proven that you've killed someone deliberately then that is Murder.

If you behave recklessly and kill them and break their neck in the way you describe above then that's for the Jury to decide. It may be Manslaughter but not necessarily. One again it is for the jury to determine if 'reasonable force' was used.

Your defence may be that it was a 'gentle push' but the injuries on the body may well tell another story, that the injuries were excessive or even post mortem.
Click to expand...
No, it won't be for the jury to decide, if there's no intent they wouldn't be charged with murder, they would be charged with manslaughter. The judge decides whether an alternative offence might apply but this is rare. The jury only decides on guilt or innocence.

It would only be for the jury to *deliberate* in very rare cases, if the judge decides a murder suspect has mitigating circs, such as mental health or other reasons he would direct them to consider the alternative offence.

I know it's still OT, but to finish this aspect, I take it you don't work in criminal law (just out of interest!)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I know it's still OT, but to finish this aspect, I take it you don't work in criminal law (just out of interest!)
Click to expand...

No I don't do you Jim, do you ? - I have been to more deaths and post mortem examinations than I care to remember whilst working in the forensic arena before I retired and given evidence on numerous occasions though.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
No I don't do you Jim, do you ? - I have been to more deaths and post mortem examinations than I care to remember whilst working in the forensic arena before I retired and given evidence on numerous occasions though.
Click to expand...
Yes I do. For far too long!
 
odd jim said:
Yes I do. For far too long!
Click to expand...

I probably didn't articulate that very well but I'm sure you know what I meant the jury will listen to both the evidence in chief and the cross examination and then form an opinion ;) - anyway it probably is time to move this on. If you want to discuss this in any depth then we can converse by PM.
 
odd jim said:
I think the OP was more directed at private property, scrubland is a different issue?
Click to expand...

Not really. Somebody still owns it. I wouldn't hesitate to trespass. But if there was a house nearby I might think about asking them first. You never know, it might be their land.

I sometimes think of dedicating some work of mine to all those people whose land I've trespassed upon.
 
jerry12953 said:
Not really. Somebody still owns it. I wouldn't hesitate to trespass. But if there was a house nearby I might think about asking them first. You never know, it might be their land.

I sometimes think of dedicating some work of mine to all those people whose land I've trespassed upon.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think there's a big difference to 'abandoned' (but obviously still owned) land and private land that clearly is close to its associated dwellings and working land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top