A great victory for the new squatting law

ruggedtoast

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/27/first-squatter-jailed-new-law

A 21-year-old man arrested at a flat in Pimlico, central London, has become the first person to be jailed under the government's anti-squatting legislation.

Alex Haigh, originally from Plymouth, has been sentenced to 12 weeks in prison after pleading guilty to occupying a housing association flat without permission.

The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that Haigh was the first person to be given a custodial sentence under section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, which came into force on the first day of September.

West London magistrates heard that police officers had gone to the flat in Cumberland Street on 2 September in search of another man. They arrested three people, one of whom was Haigh, on suspicion of squatting and all three have been convicted; the other two are awaiting sentence.

The law criminalises squatting in residential premises. Housing charities have warned that it may trigger a surge in homelessness as squatters are forced on to the streets in order to avoid a criminal record.

The squatters' rights group Squash (Squatters' Action for Secure Homes), which campaigned against criminalisation, condemned the sentencing as "deeply disproportionate and unjust". It said the building the men were occupying had been empty for more than a year.

Haigh's father, Hugh, told the Evening Standard newspaper that his son, an apprentice bricklayer, had come to London in July seeking work. "They have made an example of him. To put him in that prison environment, I don't understand it. If he broke the law, he should be dealt with, but it is like putting someone who has not paid their taxes into Dartmoor prison."

Rueben Taylor, from Squash, said: "This marks a dark day for our country, as a young vulnerable person is being sent to prison simply for trying to keep a roof over his head.

"The real crime is the 930,000 properties sitting empty across the UK, not the people who are bringing these back into use. This crazy law is aggressively punishing the victims of our housing crisis, at massive cost to the taxpayer."

Under section 144, squatting in England and Wales is punishable by up to six months' jail and fines of up to £5,000. The change in the law does not affect commercial premises.

In a circular sent to judges, courts and the police, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that what were previously known as "squatters' rights" – preventing forcible entry to an occupied building – would become redundant in relation to residential premises.

Squash claims the cost of criminalising squatting will be as high as £790m over the next five years.

Well thats just great. In the midst of a housing criss, a vulnerable young homeless man who has committed the dreadful crime of trying to squat in a property that had been empty for a year, now has a criminal record and 3 months in prison alongside rapists and armed robbers (many of whom dont get much longer than 3 months for committing actual crimes).

And this is progress.

I hate this country sometimes.

chucknorris

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/27/first-squatter-jailed-new-law



Well thats just great. In the midst of a housing criss, a vulnerable young homeless man who has committed the dreadful crime of trying to squat in a property that had been empty for a year, now has a criminal record and 3 months in prison alongside rapists and armed robbers (many of whom dont get much longer than 3 months for committing actual crimes).

And this is progress.

I hate this country sometimes.

I tend to agree with you (I don't think I will be saying that very often) in this instance, but what about this one?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029648/Holiday-squatters-strike-Sisters-return-home-Romanian-family-living-home.html

ILW

I would suspect he did not get the prison sentence purely for the squatting offence.

ruggedtoast

chucknorris wrote: »

I tend to agree with you (I don't think I will be saying that very often) in this instance, but what about this one?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029648/Holiday-squatters-strike-Sisters-return-home-Romanian-family-living-home.html

Actually the old law was adequate to deal with that scenario. The family were 'displaced residential occupiers' and the squatters should have been evicted summarily by the police.

It appears in most of these cases the police refused to act, or felt they couldn't, because there was no evidence outside the building of forced entry.

Well this is crazy because the law didn't require there to be if you are being deprived of your primary place of residence. The Mail doesnt seem to have bothered to print that.

Failing to enforce an adequate law doesnt seem a reason to put into place a more draconian one, and is an unomfortable example imo if the tabloid press leading legislation.

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Actually the old law was adequate to deal with that scenario. The family were 'displaced residential occupiers' and the squatters should have been evicted summarily by the police.

It appears in most of these cases the police refused to act, or felt they couldn't, because there was no evidence outside the building of forced entry.

Well this is crazy because the law didn't require there to be if you are being deprived of your primary place of residence. The Mail doesnt seem to have bothered to print that.

Failing to enforce an adequate law doesnt seem a reason to put into place a more draconian one, and is an unomfortable example imo if the tabloid press leading legislation.

Why should squatting be any more legal than, for example, taking and using someones car without their permission?

Rinoa

Well, with the law now on the side of the homeowner, squatters will have no option but to rent or buy like the rest of us.

Maybe the deterrent will be a positive help to them in changing their lives for the better.

lazer

I am all for this law - squatters rights should never have existed.

Whoever owns the property (regardless of whether or not it is their primary residence), should have rights to the property - it is theirs.

It is up to the governemt to support and house the homeless, not individual property owners.

Imagine you have a holiday home in Cornwall and go to stay in it a few times a year, however once you arrive it has squatters in it, and then you cannot get them out - how would you feel.

They have no right to be there.

I have no real objections to it not being criminalised as long as the police remove squatters as soon as requested by the householder. It is ridicilous that you previously had to wait to a judge to grnt an order to evict the squatters before you can access your own house.

ruggedtoast

ILW wrote: »

Why should squatting be any more legal than, for example, taking and using someones car without their permission?

Firstly because the reasons for doing so are likely to be very different.

Compassion for those less fortunate than yourself doesn't exactly radiate forth from your posts, but surely even so you can see a difference from someone stealing a car, and a homeless person climbing through an open window of an empty property when they have nowhere else to go.

CLAPTON

was his only offence squatting?
was he paying for electricity and gas and water?
was he a vulnerable person and if so in what way?
why wasn't his father helping him out?
was he actually working or living on benefits?
was the property beinbg looked after properly?

and in general squatters trash the places they live in

so without the full facts, it seems to be sending a very good message that breaking into some-one else's property is the wrong thing to do.

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

I would suspect he did not get the prison sentence purely for the squatting offence.

what are you basing that opinion on given that he has been setenced to 12 weeks in jail for squatting. if he had been setenced for 6 weeks in jail for squatting and 6 weeks in jail for another offence then you would clearly be right, but he hasn't, so it's difficult to understand where you are coming from.

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

what are you basing that opinion on given that he has been setenced to 12 weeks in jail for squatting. if he had been setenced for 6 weeks in jail for squatting and 6 weeks in jail for another offence then you would clearly be right, but he hasn't, so it's difficult to understand where you are coming from.

Just sounds unlikely and I would suspect there is some king of aggravation element involved. Doubt if the Guardian have reported the whole story, just the bits that suit their agenda.