No more squatting?

21 March 2011 by

Updated | The housing minister Grant Shapps wrote in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph that he wants to make squatting a criminal offence and “shut the door to squatters once and for all”

The changes to the law are being investigated by the Ministry of Justice at the moment (update: read the government’s press release and new guidance here). They will be of interest from a human rights perspective, although aspects of the UK’s current approach to squatters rights were declared compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights by the grand chamber European Court of Human Rights in the 2007 case of JA Pye (Ocford) LTD v. United Kingdom.

What is interesting about the proposed clarifications and changes to the law is the way in which they were reported.

The Daily Telegraph has been running a campaign to “criminalise” squatting, and was given a preview of the changes on Saturday. The Nearly Legal blog, penned by housing law experts, has posted a deconstruction of the articles, which it says amount to “a con-fused botch of the current law, which is both inaccurate and has serious omissions“.

The problem is that homeowners are already to an extent protected by the criminal law. As Nearly Legal remind us:

If one is a displaced residential occupier, or protected intended occupier, then the squatters are committing a criminal offence under section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and can be arrested. What is more, such an occupier can use force to enter their home and reasonable force to remove the trespassers.

Nearly Legal proceeded to put the Daily Telegraph on the “Legal Naughty Step” (see my previous post on the Daily Mail for an explanation), and conclude

The Telegraph… have either made up this nonsense about people unable to recover possession of their own homes, or, as may be more likely, they have fallen for a bait and switch by the Home Office/MoJ, and been sold a juicy story about protecting homeowners, when the actual proposals are about something else entirely.

Reporting of the law is a mixed bag, and as Nearly Legal have shown (and the Telegraph has form on this blog too), it is not always the tabloids who get it wrong. I will end with a quote, which will hopefully be widely repeated, from Lord Neuberger’s recent and excellent speech on open justice:

Persuasion should be based on truth rather than propaganda. It is one thing to disagree with a judgment, to disagree with a law and to campaign to change the law, but it is another thing to misstate what was said in a judgment, or to misstate the law… Justice to be truly open must join its voice to the chorus; and must ensure that inaccurate or misleading reporting cannot gain traction.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

4 comments


  1. chee ah wei says:

    maybe the government should address the reasons in the first place as to why people squat?! why buildings are empty and people go homeless, why people want a seperate cluture and why they shouldn’t be entitled to that??

    surely government can’t just change a law without taking into account all information surounding an issue?

    is this all just extended madness of tryanny of power and further de-humanizing..just because they’ve lost their will to be humans and validate other people as human beings, it seems to me, that they are denying anyone else the right too with all the changes that are going on.

    it seems to me that the law system is making decisions and changing rules left right and centre without actually adhering to the law system that surely has rules as to follow with changing laws…or is it ok for them to just make a new law because they ‘feel’ like it?? what!!!

    are there people out there exploring how to maintain the laws that protect squatters? who’s fighting this corner in a legal fashion??

  2. Stephen says:

    By all means make squatting illegal. But, to compensate, I believe the state should discharge a positive obligation to ensure that all of its citizens have an affordable home to live in. There should be no reason for citizens to squat or to otherwise be homeless.

  3. Law Think says:

    I have always argued that squatting is a justified limitation on property right. The problem is the few squatters that make the headlines have done so for a reason – either living in multi-million pound houses, having a bad attitude, or (in the case of the Mail) because they are asylum seekers.

    Squatting is a wide practice. 20 000 in the UK, and 80 000 empty homes. I hope Grant Shapps has plans and money to deal with the people made homeless by making squatting illegal.

    1. Law Think says:

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: