Vibe Leisure

Coblcris

All true.

Aggravated trespass is a different thing - and quite rare.

HO87

Whatdoiknow wrote: »

There are a number of reasons for this:

• As mentioned, it is a civil matter and is not a police officers duty
• In removing the trespasser they may injure them leading to a claim by the trespasser
• The trespasser may complain as the police have acted inappropriately (asserting state authority in a civil matter)

Some interesting points googled.

In the vast majority of such occasions the police attend not for the purposes of ejecting the trespasser nor to assist the landowner to do so but to prevent a breach of the peace - which is an officer's duty.

Should force be used by an officer it will inevitably be in circumstances where a breach of the peace has occurred or is about to. The use of force in such a situation is perfectly lawful. A breach of the peace is not a civil matter.

Your use of the phrase: "asserting state authority in a civil matter" suggests that you may have mistaken what applies in the US rather than the UK.

Whatdoiknow

HO87 wrote: »

In the vast majority of such occasions the police attend not for the purposes of ejecting the trespasser nor to assist the landowner to do so but to prevent a breach of the peace - which is an officer's duty.

Should force be used by an officer it will inevitably be in circumstances where a breach of the peace has occurred or is about to. The use of force in such a situation is perfectly lawful. A breach of the peace is not a civil matter.

Your use of the phrase: "asserting state authority in a civil matter" suggests that you may have mistaken what applies in the US rather than the UK.

Hi there,

I actually didn't make any of these comments, they were copied directly from the web, I put them up because I thought they made interesting reading.

Martin (not THE Martin I might add.)

HO87

Whatdoiknow wrote: »

Hi there,

I actually didn't make any of these comments, they were copied directly from the web, I put them up because I thought they made interesting reading.

Martin (not THE Martin I might add.)

Accepted. However, the site quoted - probably in an effort to be brief - provides substantially incomplete and therefore misleading advice. The fact that the phrase "asserting state authority" is used - very much a US legal phrase - suggests that the compiler has himself mistakenly quoted from a US-oriented source or has misunderstood or misquoted the English phrase "statutory authority". From that point of view I would be cautious about quoting further from that site.