Misrepresenting the law on squatting

26 September 2011 by

Today, an open letter from 158 lawyers and academics has been published in The Guardian claiming that the law on squatting, on which the Government has proposed reforms, has been misrepresented by politicians and the media.

I am one of the letter’s signatories. Amongst other things, it states that:

a significant number of recent media reports have stated that squatters who refuse to leave someone’s home are not committing a criminal offence and that a change in the law – such as that proposed by the government – is needed to rectify this situation.

The accompanying article is here. One interesting aspect of this campaign is that it was organised in part by one of the longest standing and best legal blogs, Nearly Legal. Nearly Legal have used social media, which an ever increasing number of lawyers follow, to gather many of the signatures. Their response is here and some of their previous posts on the topic here and here.

I have written regularly on the misrepresentation of human rights law in the media (see the articles here) and housing law appears to suffer from a similar problem, prompted by mischievous tabloid campaigns and politicians who are too willing to stoke prejudice.

The Prime Minister has recently said that he is worried by the “twisting and misrepresentation of human rights“. Will this letter, written by some serious housing lawyers (of which I am not one), prompt him to worry about the twisting and misrepresentation of housing law?

The letter and signatories are reproduced in full below:

We are legal academics, solicitors and barristers who practise in housinglaw acting for landlords, tenants, owners and occupiers. We are concerned that a significant number of recent media reports have stated that squatters who refuse to leave someone’s home are not committing a criminal offence and that a change in the law – such as that proposed by the government – is needed to rectify this situation. This is legally incorrect, as the guidance published by the Department for Communitiesand Local Government in March this year makes clear. We are concerned that such repeated inaccurate reporting of this issue has created fear for homeowners, confusion for the police and ill informed debate among both the public and politicians on reforming the law.

Further, various MPs and ministers have given statements to the press that are misleading. For example, Housing minister Grant Shapps told the World Tonight, on the issue of people’s homes being squatted, that “the police don’t act because the law does not support the police acting”. Similarly, Conservative MP Mike Weatherley, who has campaigned in support of the proposed change in the law, was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying that for someone finding squatters in their “home” the situation is that: “If those squatters claim that they did not break into your property – though they almost certainly will have done – you have no powers to throw them out”. Where the property is someone’s home, these statements are quite simply wrong.

By making misleading statements and failing to challenge inaccurate reporting, ministers have furthered the myths being peddled around squatting.

We want it to be clear that it is already a criminal offence for a squatter to occupy someone’s home, or a home that a person intends to occupy, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. A homeowner will be a displaced residential occupier, or if they are intending to move into the property, a protected intended occupier. In either case, it is a criminal offence for a squatter to remain in the property as soon as they have been told of the displaced occupier or a protected occupier. The police can arrest any trespasser who does not leave. The displaced or protected occupier can use force to enter the property and reasonable force to remove the trespassers.

Thus it seems that recent high-profile cases, such as those of Dr Oliver Cockerell and his wife, or of Julia High, could and should have been dealt with under existing criminal law. If they were not, it is likely that this was due to a lack of understanding of the law on the part of the homeowners or the police, who apparently considered these to be civil law matters.

Unfortunately, government ministers like Mr Shapps and Crispin Blunt have not taken the opportunity to make people’s existing remedies clear when giving interviews or quotes for such prominent articles. For example, in a front-page article in the London Evening Standard, Grant Shapps was quoted as saying that the case of the Cockerells showed the need to speed up the timetable for the introduction of the new proposals into law. However, the new proposals would make very little or no practical difference to a case such as the Cockerells’, if the current law was actually used. Instead of clarifying the scope of the law, statements by ministers have at times obscured it.

Squatting of vacant property that is not a home is not a criminal offence. The person with a right to the property who wants to recover possession should go to the civil courts for a possession order to protect their position. However, they can apply for an interim possession order, which typically takes a few days. Once the interim order is made and served, the squatters must leave within 24 hours or commit a criminal offence. The current law therefore provides a range of options for immediate or rapid possession for those with trespassers in their homes and those seeking to regain possession of vacant property. But newspaper articles have frequently misrepresented this, stating that homeowners face weeks of civil proceedings to regain their homes and that the trespassers have “squatter’s rights” in occupying a home.

We are very concerned that a proper debate over the value and effect of the new proposals to further criminalise occupation of buildings is threatened by widespread distortions of the current law. As the proposals would have far reaching consequences for many vulnerable people, there is a need for informed factual discussion rather than a response based on sensationalist misrepresentation. We believe that ministers should make clear the extent of the current law and the actual nature of the proposed reforms and correct any statements they have made which are likely to have confused the public. We further believe that newspapers and other media have a duty to inform their readers, rather than create fear and confusion through misrepresentation.

Andrew Arden QC Arden Chambers

Housing Law Practitioners Association Justin Bates, Vice-chair executive committee

Yinka Adedeji 1 Pump Court Chambers

James B. Allie Spence & Horne Solicitors

Michael Ashe Southwark Law Centre

Abimbola Badejo 5 Pump Court

Rebecca Bahar Cambridge House

Christopher Balog Arden Chambers

Samitra Balu Tyndallwoods Solicitors

Frances Barratt South West Law (Legal Services in the Community) Ltd

Justin Bates Arden Chambers

Ian Beachley Moss Beachley Mullem & Coleman

Sophie Bell Hodge Jones & Allen LLP

Lucia Benyu Peters Legal

Ann Bevington Fisher Meredith LLP

Sara Blandy Reader in property law, University of Leeds

James Bowen Garden Court Chambers

Lisa Bowman David Gray Solicitors

Charlotte Brans BKS Solicitors

Professor Susan Bright Oxford University

Caroline Brosnan Hodge Jones & Allen LLP

Jackie Brown Peters & Company Solicitors

Katie Brown Philcox Gray

Robert Brown Arden Chambers

Simon Buckhaven Hardwicke Chambers

Andrew Byles Garden Court North Chambers

Dr Helen Carr Reader in law, University of Kent

Rebekah Carrier Southwark Law Centre

Sylvester Carrot 1 Pump Court Chambers

David Carter Arden Chambers

Ben Chataway Doughty Street Chambers

Richard Cherry Lamb Building

Eva Chrysostomou Southwark Law Centre

Keith Clarke Burke Niazi Solicitors

Lisa Clarke Staple Inn Chambers

Charles M Clements S A Law Chambers Solicitors Ltd

Ken Cohen Moss Beachley Mullem & Coleman

Marisa Cohen 1 Pump Court Chambers

Justine Compton 1 Pump Court Chambers

Rachel Cooper BHT Advice

Stephen Cottle Garden Court Chambers

Keith Coughtrie Davies Gore Lomax LLP

Professor David Cowan Arden Chambers and University of Bristol

Laura Coyle Fisher Meredith LLP

Lou Crisfield Tower Hamlets Law Centre

Lesley Curtis Hopkin Murray Beskine

Joshua Dubin 1 Pump Court Chambers

Thom Dyke Barrister

Catherine Evans Southwark Law Centre

Kelly Evans Swain & Co

Vicky Fewkes Fisher Meredith LLP

Daniel Fitzpatrick Hodge Jones & Allen LLP

William Ford Osbornes Solicitors LLP

David Foster Foster & Foster

Deirdre Foster Powell Forster Solicitors

Simon Foster Tyndallwoods

Kay Foxall Southwark Law Centre

Viv Gambling Lambeth Law Centre

Kevin Gannon 1 Pump Court

Martin George CSET lecturer in property law, University of Birmingham

Gurbinder Gill Eric Bowes and Co

Polly Glynn Pierce Glynn Solicitors

Elis Gomer St Johns Buildings

Sue Grebby David Gray Solicitors

Sarah Green South West Law (Legal Services in the Community) Ltd

Lucie Greene Philcox Gray

Ian Greenidge Hodge Jones & Allen LLP

Rosie Grewal Powell & Co Solicitors

Tony Griffin Cartridges

Kaite Groves Switalskis Solicitors LLP

Bethan Harris Garden Court Chambers

Michelle Harris 1 Pump Court Chambers

Andrew Harrison Blackfriars Advice Centre

James Harrison Edwards Duthie

Ron Heywood Open University

Alice Hilken 1 Pump Court Chambers

John Hobson Doughty Street Chambers

Jane Hodgson Arden Chambers

Martin Hodgson 1 Pump Court

Mary Hughes 1 Pump Court Chambers

Adam Hundt Pierce Glynn Solicitors

Jenny Hunt Fisher Meredith LLP

Arnolda Hunter Hereward and Foster Solicitors LLP

Professor Caroline Hunter University of York

James Hurford Swain & Co

Rita Jackson Solicitor & Mediator

Sue James Hammersmith & Fulham Law Centre

Chris Johnson Community Law Partnership

Douglas Johnson Specialist advisor, Sheffield Law Centre

Rosaleen Kilbane Community Law Partnership

Angus King King Cambridge House

Andrew Lane Hardwicke Chambers

Jonathan Litchfield Burke Niazi Solicitors

Alan Lodge Newsome Vaughan LLP

Keith Lomax Davies Gore Lomax LLP

Hadley Long Traymans LLP

Sam Madge-Wyld Arden Chambers

Alan Masters 1 Pump Court Chambers

Derek McConnell South West Law (Legal Services in the Community) Ltd

Ben McCormack Garden Court North Chambers

Dr Morag McDermont Senior lecturer, University of Bristol

Claire McGregor Garden Court Chambers

John McNulty Turpin & Miller LLP

Vanessa Morgridge Hereward and Foster Solicitors LLP

Nicola Muir Hardwicke Chambers

Alan Mullem Moss Beachley Mullem & Coleman

Zia Nabi 1 Pump Court

Nik Nichol 1 Pump Court

Kate O’Brien South West Law (Legal Services in the community) Ltd

Richard O’Sullivan 1215 Chambers

Emily Orme Arden Chambers

Julia Osmond Southwark Law Centre

Michael Paget Garden Court Chambers

Michael Parry Island Advice Centre, Tower Hamlets

Nina Patel Quality Solicitors Jackson & Canter

Jacky Peacock OBE Brent Private Tenants’ Rights Group

Giles Peaker Anthony Gold Solicitors

Sean Petit 1 Pump Court Chambers

Stephen Pierce Pierce Glynn Solicitors

Steve Povey Shelter Cymru

James Presland 1 Pump Court Chambers

Beatrice Prevatt Garden Court Chambers

Azmon Rankohi Brightstone Law

Simon Read Zenith Chambers

Stephen Reeder Doughty Street Chambers

Paul Ridge Bindmans LLP

Tony Ross 1 Pump Court Chambers

Amy Rought-Brooks Hodge Jones & Allen LLP

Catherine Rowlands 2-3 Grays Inn Square Chambers

Sasha Rozansky Pierce Glynn Solicitors

Jacqueline Rubens 1 Pump Court Chambers

Faisel Sadiq Arden Chambers

Satvir Sahota Hodge Jones & Allen LLP

Mensah Sarbah GT Stewart

Jim Shepherd Doughty Street Chambers

Tessa Shepperson Landlord Law

David Smith Anthony Gold

Stephanie Smith Arden Chambers

James Stark Garden Court North Chambers

Sarah Steinhardt 1 Mitre Court Buildings

Sara Stephens Anthony Gold Solicitors

Michelle Stevens-Hoare Hardwicke Chambers

David Thomas GT Stewart

Joanna Thomson Pierce Glynn Solicitors

Patricia Tueje 1 Pump Court Chambers

John de Waal Hardwicke Chambers

Adam Wagner 1 Crown Office Row

Timothy Waitt Anthony Gold Solicitors

Camille Warren Garden Court North Chambers

David Watkinson Garden Court Chambers

Jenny White Fisher Meredith LLP

Peter Whitehead NMB Group Ltd

Claire Wiles Hanne & Co

Marc Willers Garden Court Chambers

Sue Willman Pierce Glynn Solicitors

Debra Wilson Anthony Gold Solicitors

Zubier Yazdani Pierce Glynn Solicitors

Fraser Young Fieldings Porter

Barbara Zeitler Clarendon Chambers

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

Related posts


  1. bons says:

    “As a final point, in my opinion the reason the police give removal of squatters a low priority is because, in reality, squatting is not the epidemic that the media suggest. Squatting in occupied residential properties is incredibly rare. For me, that’s the main problem I have with the Government and media’s coverage of squatting: massively over-exaggerating it’s extent and making the public afraid of an issue that just isn’t there.”

    Well said.

  2. NL says:

    On the evidence point – what you need to be able to assess the position is numbers of a) CLA arrests, b) police attendances for DROs/PIOs where the squatters left without arrests, c) numbers where squatters left when a DRO/PIO announced themselves with no police involvement and d) numbers of IPO and possession claims where it was a home, rather than vacant property at issue. Let us assume you can get a) & b), though I doubt it. You can’t get c) and you can’t get d) as the MoJ only has figures for IPOs and Possession orders in general for trespasser cases. There is no homeowner/vacant property breakdown. So any figures you might be able to get (although I suspect success would be doubtful) are meaningless in trying to assess the overall position.

    On anecdotal evidence of police not assisting. Yes, I have heard of the odd instance. Viz my reply to Obiter J above. You can point to anecdotal reported cases, sure – about two, maybe three. And you have no way of knowing if these are in any way representative. I’ll add in the unreported one I know of, so you have 3 or 4 cases. But without being able to say what proportion of the total of ‘homeowner’ cases these represent, the figure is meaningless.

    I am not necessarily a supporter of the law as it stands, for all your efforts to insist that I am. However, I think that such changes in the law should be based on evidence of need and a reasoned basis for the change.

    Your position, however, is that there is a definite need for a change – even going beyond that proposed – on the basis of your assumptions made on no evidence beyond newspaper reports (themselves inaccurate as noted in the letter) of maybe 3 cases. I am certainly open to persuasion but not keen on making sweeping changes in the law based on 3 or maybe 4 cases, which may or may not be exceptional, or shaped by the decisions and actions of those involved. Of course, one case be would be sufficent on your logic, regardless of its facts, which is an indication of how precarious that logic is.

    You fail to produce any analysis of the reasons in each of those few cases why civil proceedings were used and yet want to make a sweeping change based upon what you presume to have happened. This is, to say the least, a recipe for very poor law.

    On rarity – a simple definition. Doesn’t happen very often. Or indeed very infrequently. Anecdotal, of course, but then my anecdotal experience, and that of colleagues across the country with whom I am in contact, is clearly broader than yours, which consists of newspaper accounts.

    And, bluntly, I’m a bit tired of trying to argue with someone who is actually arguing against a position of their own invention. I’m sure that you are sure what it is you are arguing against, but sadly it isn’t me and I have no great desire to impersonate your strawman.

    But, as a last point, you will find the direct quote from Shapps in the letter – made on the World Tonight. And – pace the response to the letter – Shapps’s press releases are not accurate, though the DCLG guidance was, as we point out.

    1. @NearlyLegal: This made me smile:

      And, bluntly, I’m a bit tired of trying to argue with someone who is actually arguing against a position of their own invention. I’m sure that you are sure what it is you are arguing against, but sadly it isn’t me and I have no great desire to impersonate your strawman.

      I would certainly be interested to read your position on the current law – rather than the presumably negotiated terms of the mass letter – elsewhere, if that’s of interest to you. I have formed a clear impression as to what that would be from the inception of the letter and this exchange, but I am not setting out to construct one against you (as it were).

      All of the points made about evidence apply to both sides. You accuse me above of making precarious and sweeping assumptions based on reported examples which are inaccurate. I’ve made clear my view on the reliance placed on rarity, both in response to you and @Mike above, and the rhetrocial focus on terms of the law as against the reality for those affected.

      We clearly won’t agree on this!

  3. While I completely agree that Ministers and the press should not get away with misrepresenting housing law for political gain (and I also acknowledge that the signatories of the letter are far, far greater experts than I in the matter of housing law), I think aspects of the letter itself are disingenuous. To put it another way, the letter simplifies matters to the extent that it is misleading. There are difficulties with the Criminal Law Act 1977 that make the law more complex to enforce than it should be.

    The letter says: “We want it to be clear that it is already a criminal offence for a squatter to occupy someone’s home, or a home that a person intends to occupy, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. A homeowner will be a displaced residential occupier, or if they are intending to move into the property, a protected intended occupier. In either case, it is a criminal offence for a squatter to remain in the property as soon as they have been told of the displaced occupier or a protected occupier. The police can arrest any trespasser who does not leave.”

    1. First: It is not a criminal offence for a squatter to occupy a person’s home. It is a criminal offence to remain there having been asked to leave by a “displaced residential occupier” or a “protected intending occupier” (Section 7(1), Criminal Law Act 1977). This is a small but significant difference, because of what follows.

    2. A person is only a displaced residential occupier or protected intending occupier if they have been “excluded from occupation of the premises” by the trespasser (s.12(3) and 12A(2)). A trespasser who allows the owner back into the house, but still refuses to leave, commits no offence.

    3. Also, in order to be a protected intending occupier a person must first have served upon the trespasser a statement of their interest in the property, which must have been witnessed by a justice of the peace or commissioner for oaths (s. 12A). I know nothing of the Cockerells’ case, but if someone arrived at their new house on a Friday evening, to find it in occupied by squatters, (1) how would they find a solicitor or magistrate to witness a statement before Monday morning (2) how would they even know that this is what the law requires? In that situation the police would indeed be pretty powerless to help them get into their house over the weekend.

    4. The squatter has a defence if they believe the person asking them to leave was not the displaced occupier or their representative (s.7(2)). There isn’t even a “reasonable” belief requirement.

    Where squatters are occupying residential premises the police ought to be able to require the trespassers to leave, or arrest them for not leaving, if the owner/occupiers can demonstrate their right to the premises, and give the police a statement that the property is their home. Giving a false statement could be made an offence, thereby providing the necessary safeguards that the JP/commissioner for oaths is presumably meant to provide. The requirement for the householder to have been excluded is also surely unnecessary. It is strongly arguable that to find squatters in your home should be enough in its own right to give the police powers to intervene. Despite what the many learned signatories have sought to persuade us, it is not quite that simple.

    1. NL says:

      Mrs Markleham
      I don’t think that there is anything in the letter that contradicts any of your points 1 to 4 (save perhaps 2). Indeed you quote us making point 1.

      Point 2 is perhaps a bit otiose. Hardly a loophole and has anyone, ever, heard of this happening? And what if the trespasser retained part of the property, excluding the homeowner from that?

      Point 3 – yes. That was in fact in an earlier draft, but this was, after all, a letter for printing in the press. We felt it had to be trimmed back from some 2 and a bit pages and had to loose procedural details in doing so. The Cockerells were talking about more than a weekend by the way, but I have no idea why they didn’t pursue the PIO route – save that it was reported that the police told them it was ‘a civil matter.

      On 4. yes, but ‘I don’t believe it’ alone isn’t enough. It might not have to be ‘reasonable belief’ but there has to be a reason.

      I don’t think we tried to say ‘it was that simple’. We did say that the ‘simple’ version of ‘they have squatters rights and you have to bring civil proceedings taking weeks’ was wrong.

      I think your conclusion is otherwise more or less how it is supposed to work now (save that it is a ‘home’ not just ‘residential property’). Obviously there is a further hurdle for a PIO – and I wouldn’t disagree that that could be satisfactorily updated. But I do disagree on the exclusion point. It would be all too easy for abuse to happen otherwise – say by in a lodger arrangement gone sour.

      1. NL – thanks for your reply – all fair enough points, and I do applaud your having tackled the misinformation coming out of government. I’m no housing lawyer, and have never had to deal with squatters in any capacity, and I’m sure you’re right that point 2 never arises in practice. My point really was that why does the law introduce a requirement (i.e. showing you have been excluded) that serves no purpose? Arguably, the protection of the criminal law should be available where trespassers occupy your home, whether you’re technically “excluded” or not. The same argument might also be made in respect of the need to show forced entry.

        Of course, I hadn’t thought about the lodger-gone-sour argument. This does rather throw a different light on it. Whether the “exclusion” requirement is a proportionate way of addressing this is a moot point. Perhaps the law could make some distinction between people who have previously been in lawful occupation and those who have not.

        My main objection to the law as it stands (leaving aside the practical difficulties in getting the police to actually intervene, dealt with admirably by other commentators here) was the pointless and bureaucratic need to have a statement witnessed by a JP or commissioner for oaths before you can even call yourself a PIO and claim the police’s protection (point 3). The law seems by all accounts to be difficult enough to enforce, without having to leap this hurdle to even bring yourself within its purview. No wonder the police, let alone the general public, are confused. I’m glad you agree this aspect could be updated.

        Mrs M

  4. Mike says:

    @Barry Pearson: I think overgraduate’s referring to a couple of apparent discrepancies in your blog post. The reference to “as long as I can’t prove they broke in themselves” is another example of the misinformation about the legality of squatting that’s commonly recited. It’s not true that squatting is only illegal if the squatters break in. As stated above, if it’s a residential property, they’re breaking the law if they don’t leave when they’re requested to, regardless of how they entered.

    Also, if it’s a residential property you don’t need to get a possession order to regain possession.

    @Matthew Taylor: You seem to be arguing at cross purposes with Nearlylegal. The argument raised in the open letter is that the Government is being misleading as to the current state of the law, which I entirely agree with for the reasons given in the letter. Your response, however, seemed to be that regardless of what the black and white legal position currently is, in practice the police don’t intervene even when they do have the power to do so. That’s a position entirely consistent with Nearlylegal’s letter.

    I would ask you this though. Assuming you’re right, and that the police don’t get involved when they could, then what good would tightening the law do? If squatting is already illegal, and the police don’t do anything about it, what makes you think they will after a change in the law? This is clearly an operational matter, and if the Government do want to crack down on squatting then it could be done under current legislation by ordering police to give removal of squatters a higher priority and, importantly, by better training police forces as to the legal status of squatting and their powers in relation to it, rather than continuing to make misleading and confusing statements to the media.

    As a final point, in my opinion the reason the police give removal of squatters a low priority is because, in reality, squatting is not the epidemic that the media suggest. Squatting in occupied residential properties is incredibly rare. For me, that’s the main problem I have with the Government and media’s coverage of squatting: massively over-exaggerating it’s extent and making the public afraid of an issue that just isn’t there.

    1. @Mike – I am also taking issue with the argument NearlyLegal and other signatories make about the government misrepresenting the law, and with their contention that the current position is satisfactory – the reference to the Cockerell case, for example, is in terms of that being an unfortunate failure by the police, rather than (as the anecdotal evidence suggests) the routine position.

      On police involvement, I’ve outlined my thoughts on the signalling effect of the current position above. The existence of a twin track process – a criminal offence of failing to leave when asked, and a civil process for obtaining possession – provides a basis for the police to view residential squatting as “not a police matter”. Similarly, the maximum sentence permitted for the offence (six months IIRC) signals that this is not a serious offence.

      The rarity of the matter is, imv, irrelevant. Many criminal offences are rare, but I doubt we’d debate the need to deter and deal with them effectively simply because of their rarity. Citing rarity also ignores the potential impact of residential squatting on its victims. I have referred to it elsewhere as functionally equivalent to burglary, and I think that’s a reasonable way to characterise it. I would be very surprised to find that the impact on its victims is markedly different.

      What the Government certainly has done is to use residential squatting as a leading edge for its push to criminalise all squatting, but that’s not the same as misrepresenting the current legal position.

      The charge of misrepresentation, if it stands up at all, stands up against the media generally and one or two specific MPs. It doesn’t stand up against the government, but attacking the media is rather less likely to get your letter published in the Guardian.

  5. overgraduate says:

    i think barry pearson does not understand the law and has not read the post on which he is commenting. i fully support the argument of the blog which is both factually correct and humane.

    1. Please tell me what (if anything) I got wrong. I certainly read the above post, plus lots of other things, as can be seen from my blog (reached via the link in my name).

      Note what I am asking for: people who might currently contemplate squatting for a few days in my home under the current law, because they could not be convicted of a criminal offense if they leave within 24 hours of an IPO, would under the changed law be committing a crime whether or not they leave on time. This should make it less likely that they enter and squat in the first place.

      It is roughly equivalent to saying (in some hypothetical country) “instead of it just being an offense not to hand goods back within a day of taking them, we are making it a criminal offense to take goods in the first place”. I suggest the latter deters theft, while the former wouldn’t.

      I am not claiming the above article is inaccurate; that is the problem! For a householder like me, with just one property which is my dwelling, the current law appears to be inhumane towards me.

      1. Nearly Legal says:

        Barry, if they are squatting in your home, they are committing a criminal offence by not leaving as soon as you tell them that it is your home.

        It is also a criminal offence not to leave within 24 hours of an IPO being served, but you don’t have to serve an IPO for their remaining in your home to be a criminal offence.

  6. My response to the Government’s Squatting Consultation, and which I’ve just put on my blog, is:

    … There doesn’t appear to be a deterrent against squatting in my house in the first place, (as long as I can’t prove they broke in themselves), just against staying there after I get an IPO. That is too late. Having had my house broken into and robbed in the past, I know that I don’t want anyone potentially defiling and contaminating my house for a minute, let alone the few days it would take to force them to leave. Who knows what damage and invasion of privacy they would do, especially in the 24 hours after they know they are being forced to leave? …

    … I can understand arguments for making sensible use of long-term-empty property. But my position here is much simpler in scope: I want it to be a criminal offense for anyone to squat in my home. That may be sufficient to deter anyone from trying it, and so avoid all the problems that I would otherwise face until the squatters leave. …

  7. @NearlyLegal: Not even close, hence “The failure to engage with practical matters leaves the signatories correct as to the law and woefully out of step with reality”.

    As a profession we get stereotyped as obssessed with “the law” to the expense of actuality, and I fear your response is proving the point. The financial and personal costs of regaining possession – which, on the basis of your comments, you are well aware of – are significant, and the current law places that burden solely on the occupier. I’ve outlined above why I think it has a direct impact on police priorities, which you choose not to engage with.

    As an aside, since you’re mostly interesting in legal accuracy, it’s specifically not a criminal offence to displace occupiers – the criminal offence arises upon a failure “to leave…on being required to do so by…” one of the designated persons, directly analogous to the s.61 power under the 1994 Act – hardly surprising since the current s.7 CLA1977 was inserted by the 1994 Act.

    I might also mention that, until the 1994 Act, it had been a criminal offence to use force to effect entry to premises even if you were the displaced occupier. It would be interesting to see whether the same arguments you and others now deploy to prevent criminalisation of squatting weren’t also deployed at the time to avoid decriminalisation of forcible entry.

    Perhaps you might now set aside your own glass of Kool Aid, and look again at the points above? You might particularly wish to consider the signalling effect of the terms of the current legislation, and explain why you think criminalising the original act of unauthorised entry and occupation (rather than the refusal to leave), and imposing stiffer penalities, would not alter police priorities.

    1. Nearly Legal says:

      OK – let’s just say you weren’t exactly clear in saying “the fact that putting innocent people out of their homes is not a criminal offence” (of course, actually turning someone out of their home would be) – and then when suggesting that CLA is a ‘twin track’ process with a possession order, you are wrong. It is not a twin track process.

      As for shorthand – yes, I’m well aware of the law ;-)

      As far as I understand you, you want occupying a home to be made a more severe criminal offence on the basis that then the police might do something about it?

      So, where is your evidence that there is a problem for DROs and PIOs? You ask us for statistical evidence (which no-one including the DCLG or MoJ actually has – see the consultation) but you are the one asserting that something further needs to be done. On what basis do you make that assertion?

      Likewise, you taking it as ‘undisputed’ that ‘most occupiers’ finding their property squatted have to bring civil possession proceedings is a whopping assumption and one that you will have to justify, because, well, it isn’t undisputed.

      After all, if a DRO or PIO turns up with the police and the squatters promptly leave, that is a result, but not one that would be recorded as either an arrest & prosecution or as a civil possession claim.

      My anecdotal experience and that of colleagues is that occupation of a home is very rare. This also makes rational sense. If looking for somewhere to occupy for more than the immediate short term and without risk of arrest, why pick a home?

      I must also point out that whatever it is you want as the new offence, you do not appear to be arguing for anything that the consultation puts forward as an option. There is no discussion of increasing the severity of offence for those occupying a home.

      I look forward to being shown the extent of the problem.

      Now, on the misrepresentation, where a minister stated that the police have no power to act when a home has been squatted, I take it that you would agree that this is wrong? Or where an MP stated that the homeowner has ‘no powers’ to throw out the occupiers, that this is also wrong?

      Or where the Daily Telegraph stated
      “Squatting is not currently a criminal offence in England and Wales and instead it is up to the owners to use the civil courts to enforce their rights, which can turn in to lengthy and expensive legal battles.

      They must also prove to the courts that they are either a ”displaced residential occupier” – someone who has returned from holiday to find squatters in their house – or a ”protected intended occupier”, who is intending to move into an empty property”, you would also accept that this is an inaccurate account of the law?

      Or from the same Evening Standard article you link to, when, “Housing minister Grant Shapps said he would speed up plans to criminalise gangs who take over family homes”, would you agree that this omits any mention that such occupation is already criminal and that, in combination with the next sentence which you quote, the Minister implies that there is no current alternative to ‘a legal battle’. (That is itself an odd description of getting an IPO and then full order, given that there is no defence to a possession claim for trespass at all.).

      If the newspaper report and the Ministers had said ‘it is a criminal offence but the police are usually reluctant to enforce it and this is a problem’, then we wouldn’t be here, now.

      1. Probably my last reply on this, as I’m unlikely to be near a PC.

        The evidence point is an interesting one, and possibly one for FOI – I mentioned on Twitter why I suspect your assumption about police records is incorrect. As things stand, however, I can point to anecdotal, reported cases in which DROs and PIOs have not been assisted by the police, despite the existing criminal law, and have had to pursue the matter through the courts. I’m still not aware of anything you’re offering which says otherwise (see below on “rarity” of residential squatting).

        CLA as twin track process
        Yes, in principle, an occupier can proceed simply by demanding the squatters leave and police take action, or by pursuing a possession order through the courts. In practice, however, I’d assume any sensible solicitor would advise a client seeking prompt re-entry to his property to do both in parallel given the anecdotal evidence to support the view that the police will be reluctant to take action.
        (And, of course, the fact that the occupier could take civil action is something that may encourage the police to take the view that the occupier should, and that it “not a police matter”.)

        Basis for asserting that something needs to be done
        We have clear anecdotal evidence of cases in which individuals who are clearly DROs or PIOs are displaced by squatters who the police fail to take immediate action to remove. Where I suspect you and I differ is that I do not consider it acceptable that such individuals should have to go through a court process to have those individuals removed, both due to the costs and due to the delay (again, I suspect we differ as to our view of whether it acceptable for someone to be displaced from their home for at least 24 hours).

        Whether it is undisputed that DRO/PIOs must bring possession orders.
        Here you’re attempting to place the onus on me, but you’re forgetting the anecdotal (reported) cases: in most some form of possession proceedings are brought. If you wish to claim that these cases are unrepresentative, or that they are exceptional, the onus is on you to produce evidence.

        Rarity of home squatting
        I’d be interested to know what measure of “rare” you’re using here. I suspect you are using “within mine and colleagues practice, which includes non-residential squatting, residential non-occupied squatting, and residential occupied squatting. In the context of all squatting, I suspect you are probably correct, and the last is “rare”. I don’t really see how that’s of any relevance, however.

        Rationality of choosing a home to squat
        There are perfectly rational reasons to choose a home: connected utilities, furniture, already weather tight, likely to be easy to secure. That’s before we get into the question of access to and use of the possessions of the displaced occupier.

        Content of the consultation
        You’re right – I don’t think the consultation goes far enough. It should be considering a more serious offence where an occupier is displaced, with stiff penalties as a deterrent. Again, not clear why the fact my view isn’t that of the government is relevant to the questions being discussed – it has no bearing on the specific question of whether there’s a problem.

        By all means identify “…where a minister stated that the police have no power to act when a home has been squatted” or an MP stated that the homeowner has ‘no powers’ to throw out the occupiers. I agree that both are incorrect statements, but I’d be very interested to see a direct quote from Shapps in those terms (I can believe that an MP said the latter).

        Daily Telegraph
        “Squatting is not currently a criminal offence in England and Wales and instead it is up to the owners to use the civil courts to enforce their rights, which can turn in to lengthy and expensive legal battles.

        They must also prove to the courts that they are either a ”displaced residential occupier” – someone who has returned from holiday to find squatters in their house – or a ”protected intended occupier”, who is intending to move into an empty property”

        It’s an incomplete statement of the law, and inaccurate as a result. If the first clause of the first sentence read “The Police often fail to take action and…”, I think it would be accurate and reflective of the anecdotal (reported) cases.

        Evening Standard
        Or from the same Evening Standard article you link to, when, “Housing minister Grant Shapps said he would speed up plans to criminalise gangs who take over family homes”, would you agree that this omits any mention that such occupation is already criminal and that, in combination with the next sentence which you quote, the Minister implies that there is no current alternative to ‘a legal battle’. (That is itself an odd description of getting an IPO and then full order, given that there is no defence to a possession claim for trespass at all.).

        I wouldn’t characterise it as a legal battle, but I think most civilians would consider obtaining any court order to be a legal battle, and I assume you’re not claiming it’s cost free – I’m guessing you don’t act pro-bono. Again, this comes back to the difference of perspective on involvement with the courts as between lawyers and civilians.

        As to the Shapps quote, I agree the quote is an incomplete (and therefore inaccurate) statement of the legal position. Whether what Shapps said was similar inaccurate, neither of us knows – but we do know that Shapps’ press releases and the guidance CLG released was complete and correct.

  8. When the Police are constantly being told that residential occupiers need a Court order to get their homes back, why should they act? It’s hard enough for them to know all the criminal law without expecting them to distinguish political rhetoric from legal fact. If Grant Shapps told them clearly that they should help displaced residential occupiers rather than consulting on criminalising squatters, that would be more helpful to all concerned.

  9. Nearly Legal says:

    Obiter J – The police do refuse – either saying ‘it is a civil matter’ (which it isn’t) or pleading resources and priorities. I act for property owners in regaining possession and am well aware of the realities. But the failure of the police to be of help doesn’t change the fact that the current law is being misrepresented. It would also cast doubt on the merits of the proposals. After all, if it were known that occupation of a home is a criminal offence, but that police don’t do anything much about it, what is the actual point in further criminalising trespass in practical reality? Bringing in new statute is a very poor way of attempting to respond to police lack of awareness or operational priorities, wouldn’t you say?

    And then the ministers do cite their proposals as helping homeowners, when the actual proposals concern vacant buildings, not homes at all.

    Now, Matthew Taylor appears to have got the wrong end of the stick entirely. We are pointing out that it IS NOW a criminal offence to ‘put people out of their homes’, contrary to what assorted papers and ministers are saying. You appear to have drunk that particular Kool-Aid.

    As for any broader campaigning position? No, we haven’t got one. I suspect that those who signed up have quite different views on the merits of the Govt proposals. What we are annoyed about is attempts to justify it by recourse to a wrong account of the current law and suggestions that the proposals would ‘help homeowners’, as stated by Shapps, when they have nothing to do with homeowners.

  10. I’d take ObiterJ’s point further – I think it’s the signatories who are engaging in misrepresentation: of the reality facing occupiers, and they are further at risk of misrepresenting the position of the people they’re attacking.

    The reference to a front page article in the Evening Standard appears to be to this article: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23984570-vow-to-slam-door-on-squatters.do In it, Shapps is quoted as saying:

    “This anti-social and unfair practice causes misery and distress to law-abiding homeowners who should not face a legal battle just to gain access to their own home.”

    I don’t understand it to be disputed that most occupiers who find their property taken over by squatters are forced to obtain an order from the court before they can get squatters removed. I don’t understand it to be disputed that obtaining such an order is expensive – in ordinary people’s terms, certainly – and stressful. I don’t understand it to be disputed that homeowners will recover their costs of the process only rarely.

    (We can, of course, have the debate about police priorities and resources, but the maximum sentence permitted under CLA77, coupled with the twin track process, involving as it does possession orders, gives clear signals to police forces as to the priority attached to the offence.)

    The failure to engage with practical matters leaves the signatories correct as to the law and woefully out of step with reality.

    The situation over residential property is highly unsatisfactory. An individual who enters my home and deprives me of my property through theft is likely to be arrested and may then face a prison sentence; by contrast, someone who enters and deprives me of my property by changing the locks is rarely even arrested.

    This is, of course, the first skirmish in the wider battle about squatting; in that context the signatories have committed a tactical blunder of the first order.

    The Government wishes to criminalize all squatting. There may be a debate to be had about criminalizing non-residential squatting, but in defending the fact that putting innocent people out of their homes is not a criminal offence – which is what this letter functionally is, and is precisely how it will be perceived by a majority of civilians – these lawyers have squandered their credibility to make a defence of non-residential squatting.

    Personally, I hope the pro-squatting lobby continues to acquit itself this well, but I’d hope for a better showing from this many lawyers!

  11. ObiterJ says:

    Displaced residential occupier – what happens if the Police refuse to act? This appears to be all too often the case. Are the signatories really sure that the law AND practice are entirely satisfactory?

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.




#50cases #catgate #fighthatewithhumanrights #lawblogs 7/7 7/7 bombing 7/7 inquest 7/7 inquests 9/11 100 years of women in law 1688 bill of rights 2010 General Election 2012 in review 2012 year in review 2017 @Iamspartacus a1p1 a1p1 breach A1P1 damages Aarhus Aarhus Convention A B and C abbas hall Abid Naseer ablyazov abortion Absent Witness Abu Hamza abu qatada abuse of dominant position abuse of private information abuse of process academic freedom access to courts access to information Access to justice accountability acoustic shock acquired disorder AC v Berkshire Addison Lee Adetoro v United Kingdom adjudication administrative law admissability criteria adoption adoption orders advance decision advance directive advertisements advertising affirmative action Afghanistan age assessment agency age of criminal responsibility aggravated damages agreement Agriculture Ahava Ahmad Faraz Khan AI air noise air pollution air quality air travel Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi Alan Turing ALBA alcohol dependence algorithm algorithms Alien Tort Statute alignment problem Al Jedda allergy allocation of resources Al Qaeda Al Quaeda Al Rawi Al Skeini alternative medicine alternative therapy altruism American Declaration of Independence Amnesty International Amnesty International 2010 Report amphibians amusement parks ancillary relief Andy Coulson animal cruelty animal culls animal rights Animals animal welfare anonymising anonymity anonymous website anorexia nervosa an rights Ansari ANS v ML [2012] UKSC 30 anti-blasphemy laws anti-discriminatiom anti-semitism anti-terrorism review anti-terrorist legislation antibody antiretrovirals anxious scrutiny AONB A P Herbert appeal Appeals archeology Arctic charr Arhuus Convention Armed forces army arrest Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 article 3 UNCRC article 5 Article 5 ECHR article 5(3) Article 6 article 6 criminal Article 6(3) Article 8 Article 8 claim against council Article 8 protection of privacy Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Article 50 article 263 TFEU artificial hydration and nutrition Artificial Intelligence artificial nutrition and hydration Artile 8 asbestosis Assange Assange extradition assisted reproduction assisted suicide assisting suicide associated newspapers asylum asylum amnesty asylum claim asylum law asylum seeker asylum seeker death driver asylum seekers ATE premiums atheism Atul Gawande audio Australia australian constitution autism autonomy axel springer axel springer ag ayslum Azelle Rodney babar ahmad baby Baby P badger cull badgers Badger Trust bad judges bad tackle Baha Mousa Public Inquiry Bahta & Ors bail BAILII bailout Balen Report ban bankers bonuses Bank Mellat baptism barclay brothers barristers bats' rights battlefield BBC beaches bedroom tax beijing belief benefit cap benefits bereavement damages best interests big business bike training service bilateral trade treaty bill of right Bill of Rights Bill of rights commission Bingham Rule of Law Centre Binyam Mohamed bioethics biology biomedicine biometric data biotechnology bipolar disorder birds directive birmingham birth certificate births deaths and marriages BJ (INCAPACITATED ADULT) sub nom SALFORD CITY COUNCIL v BJ Black & Morgan v. Wilkinson blawg blawg review blight blogging blogosphere blogs blood Bloody Sunday Bloody Sunday findings BNP boaters boats Body scanners Boris Johnson bovine TB bradley manning BRCA BRCA gene BRCA mutation breach of Article 6 breach of Article 6(1) breach of confidence breast cancer brevet brexit Brian Haw bribery Bribery Act 2010 Brighton Conference Brighton Declaration British Airways British Airways v Unite British Bill of Rights British Chiropractic Association British citizenship British constitution British embassy british lawyers British soldiers Broadmoor bronze soldier brownlie browsing BSkyB BUCKLAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 40060/08 - HEJUD Buddhism budget Bull v Hall burkha Burnham Market Book Festival Cadder Cafcass Canada canal cancellation cancer CAP capacity carbon capture cardio-pulmonary resuscitation Care and Support Bill care home care home; elderly people; dementia; capacity; deprivation of liberty care homes care order Care orders care proceedings car insurance carnivores Carson v UK case law Case Note Catholic Care Catholic Church catholic midwives CBI CCTV cerebral palsy CETA CFAs chagos Chagos Islanders charitable objects charity Charity Commission Charles J read judgment Simon Lewis Charlie Hebdo charter Charter of Fundamental Rights chemotherapy chief coroner child child's best interests child abduction child poverty Child Poverty Action Group child protection Children children's homes children's rights Children Act children giving evidence child welfare chimpanzees China Chindamo Chris Grayling Chris Packham Christian christianity church church of scientology CIA circumcision citizens advice bureau citizenship citizens rights civil liberties civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships civil proceedings civl partnerships CJEU CJEU rule of law class of degree client earth climate change climate change sceptic climategate climate research unit clinical need clinical negligence cloning closed material procedure Closed Material Procedures Coalition agreement Coalition Government Code Civile code of conduct cohabitees cold calling Cologne combat immunity comments comment thread commission Commission for Equality & Human Rights Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law common law rights communications Communications Act 2003 communications data Communications Data Bill 2008 Compassion in World Farming compelementary medicine compensation competition complementary medicine compulsory detention compulsory labour computer hacking computer science concentration camps conditional fee agreements conditions Confederation of British Industry confidentiality confiscation order conscience conscience clause conscientious objection consent conservation Conservative Party Conservatives constitution constitutional court of south africa constitutional disorder construction consultation consultation responses contact order contact point contempt of court contempt of court act content neutrality content providers contingency fee arrangements contract control and restraint Control orders Convention system of protection Conway cookies copying Copyright copyright infringement cornrows coronavirus coroner Coroner's inquest coroners Coroners and Justice Act 2009 corporal punishment cosmetics testing costs Costs and Procedure costs budgets council Council of Europe Counter Terrorism and Security Bill cour de cassation court Court of Justice of the European Union Court of Protection Court of Session Court Orders court procedure Courts Bill Courts Martial Covent Garden Coventry Council CPR gateway CPS CRB challenge credibiility] credibility cricket crime crimes against humanity Criminal criminal conviction Criminal Courts Charge criminal justice Criminal Justice and Courts Bill criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal prosecution criminal records criminal responsibility criminal sentencing Cross Examination Crown Prosecution Service crr crucifix cryonic preservation custody custody dispute cuts Cybersecurity D daily mail Daily Mirror Dajid Singh Shergill Dale Farm evictions damage Damages dangerous nonsense database data controller data processing data protection data retention data sharing data snooping date rape david cameron David Chaytor David James David Kelly David Miranda day care closures death death match death penalty Debbie Purdy declaration declaration of incompatibility defamation Defamation Act Defamation Bill defaming the dead defence of illegality defendant's costs order deficit defmation DEFRA delegated legislation democracy Democracy village demolition order demotion Dennis Gill dentist's registration fees Department of Health deportation deportation cases deprivation of liberty deprivation of property derogations Detainee inquiry Detention determinism devolution devolved government Dewani diagnosis Diane Pretty Dica diego garcia Digital Economy Act 2010 Digital Economy Bill Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy diplomatic immunity direct action Directive direct marketing director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disabled claimants disciplinary hearing disclosure Disclosure of Previous Convictions discretionary leave to remain discretion to quash Discrimination Discrimination law disease dismissal disqualification dissenting judges Divisional Court divorce DNA DNA database DNA home-testing DNA retention DNA testing doctor doctor-patient relationship doctors doctrine of double effect doctrine of state act does it matter? domestic violence domestic workers Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell donor Do Not Resuscitate Notices Doogan and Wood do trees have rights? double conviction DPP guidelines Dr Chhabra dripa driving licence driving penalty Drones Drone strikes drug dealer damages drug offence Dr Zakir Naik Dublin Convention Dublin II Dublin III regulation Dublin II Regulation Dublin Regulation Dudko duties duty of care duty to investigate duty to rescue eastenders eating horses ECHR economic and social rights economic loss economic rights ECtHR Ed Snowden Education Edward Snowden EHRC elderly election election court election results Electoral Commission report Electoral law electric cars electricity Elizabeth Warren ellie butler el masri embryo embryonic stem cells embryos emergency budget emissions trading employers Employment employment appeal tribunal employment disputes employment law employment rights Employment Tribunal fees employment tribunals employment vetting English Defence Leauge English translation enhanced criminal record checks entitlement Environment environmental challenges environmental impact assessment environmental information environmental justice Environmental law environmental law foundation environmental liability directive environmental protection environmental rights environment brexit Envrionmental Information Directive epa endangerment finding eployment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Equality and Human Rights Commission Equality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister & Ors [2011] EWHC 2401 (Admin) - equality of arms equal marriage equal marriage consultation equal treatment erika espionage ethics EU eu and strasbourg EU Charter EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms eu commission EU competence eu costs eu courts EU criminal Law opt out eu documents eu law Europe european european arrest warrant European Charter European Charter of Fundamental Rights European Charter of Fundamental Rigths European Commission European Communities Act European Convention European Convention on Human Rights European Court European Court of European Court of Human Rights European Court of Human Rights reform European Court of Justice european disability forum European law European Sanctions Blog European Social Charter european union Eurozone EUSFTA eu state liability euthanasia EU transparency EU Turkey summit EU waste directive eviction evidence evidence-based medicine Evidence-based policy evidence of torture evironmental assessment evolution ex-pats exceptional case funding exceptionality excessive taxes exclusion exclusion order executions exhaustion of domestic remedies expenses expenses scandal expert evidence Expert evidence on foreign law Express extinct extinction rebellion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Eyjafjallajökull volcano Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition factitious disorder factory farming fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news false imprisonment false passport Families Need Fathers Family Family Court family courts Family Courts without a Lawyer: A Handbook for Litigants in Person family division Family Justice Review family law family legal aid Family life farage farm farm animals farming fast-track removal fatal accidents act fathers fathers rights feature fertility treatment FGM finance Financial Conduct Authority financial dependency financial harm financial information Financial Services Authority Firat Dink First Amendment first publishers fisheries fishing claims fishing industry fishing quota fishing rights fitness to practise Flood v The Times Flood v Times foetus foia food banks forced marriage force feeding foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy forensic science format shifting Fourteenth Amendment fracking France francovich freedom freedom of assembly Freedom of Association freedom of conscience Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech freedom of the press free expression Freemen of the land free movement of goods free speech free will freezing assets French schools FTP fundamental rights Funeral pyre Future of legal blogging G (Children) G4S G20 protest Gabrielle Giffords Gaddafi regime gainsborough game birds Gamu Nhengu gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay couple gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict gazza GCHQ gdpr GE 2017 gearbox Gender gender reassignment General Dental Council General Duty General Election general election 2010 general election 2019 General Medical Council genes genetic affinity genetic discrimination genetic disorder genetic engineering genetic information Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act genetic modification genetics genetic testing Geneva Convention genome genome sequencing Geoff Hoon George Osborne German Chancellor German court Germany germ line mutation Ghailani GlaxoSmithKlein gmc Goldman Sachs golf course Google government governmental bodies GP privacy grayling consultation Great Repeal Bill green belt grenfell Gresham College grooming gross offence Guantanamo Bay Guardian News and Media Ltd guernsey G v E & Ors G v E & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 939 gwyneth paltrow gypsies H1N1 habeas corpus habitats habitats protection hackgate Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk hancock Haney happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council haringey council tax benefit Harkins and Edwards hate speech Health healthcare health insurance hearing loss Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary high speed train route Hindu Hirst No. 2 Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust home homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy Homo Deus homophobia homo sapiens homosexual hooding horisontality horizontal application horizontal effect horsemeat hospitals Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefit housing benefits Howard Donald Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim HRA incorporation Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ human being human dignity Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome humanism human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights in private disputes human rights news human rights record Human Rights Watch human right to education Human Tissue Act human trafficking hung parliament hunting Huntington's Chorea Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Ian McEwan ICAO Igor Sutyagin illegal immigration illegality illegality defence illegitimacy image rights imaginary litigation immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity Imports incorporation HRA increase of sanction indefinite leave to remain indian advocates indian supreme court indirect discrimination Indonesia Industrial Action informed consent Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction injunction continued inland revenue Inquest inquest law Inquests inquiry insanity inshore fleet insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intellectual property intelligence intelligence services act intensive care intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international comity international conflict international court of justice international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law International Labour Organisation international law International Stem Cell Corporation international treaty obligations internet internet libel internet service providers internment internship interrogation intrusion inuit invasive species invention investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program iran sanctions Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland Irish Constitution irrationality ISC ISIL islam isolated nucleic acids isolation Israel israeli palestinian conflict italian ships Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban Jack Dorsey jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan japanese knotweed Jason Smith jean charles de menezes Jeet Singh Jefferies jehovah's witnesses Jeremy Clarkson Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt jihad Jihadi brides jihadists JIH identity jim duffy job jobseekers' allowance Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy jonathan sumption Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging judgment judgment in default Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference Judicial immunity judicial no-mans land judicial oversight judicial power judicial review Judicial Review reform Judicial Studies Board judiciary Julian Assange Julian Asssange Juncker jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Cameron Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 justiciability justification just satisfaction Kant Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK kazakstan Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Khan v Advocate General for Scotland khordokovsky Kings College Kiobel Klimas koran burning laboratory animals laboratory test Labour labour law lack of reasons Lady Hale land landfill gas landowner landowners language lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain Lee Rigby legal advice privilege legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legality legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal privilege legal profession legal professional privilege legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure Lewis Malcolm Calver liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberal Democrats liberal humanism Liberty libraries closure library closures licence conditions licence to shoot licensee life insurance life orders life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania litigant in person litvinenko live exports livestock livestock trade living instrument living will LME local authorities local government locked in syndrome locus standi london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Carey Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge Lord Judge speech Lord Justice Jackson Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Mance Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sales Lord Saville Report Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman MAGA Magna Carta Magna Carter Mail Online mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy male circumcision malice malicious falsehood mandela M and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury manifestation of belief manifestos Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui Marie Colvin marine conservation marine environmental law marine sanctuaries Mark Kennedy mark twain marriage marriage act 1949 material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton Mcfarlane McKenzie friend me/cfs research Media and Censorship media judge Medical medical confidentiality medical ethics medical evidence medical liability medical negligence medical profession medical qualifications medical records medical treatment medicine mental capacity mental capacity; press; reporting restrictions Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts mental health hospital Mental illness merits review mesothelioma metgate MGN v UK michael gove Middle Temple Midwives Milly Dowler minimally conscious minimum income minimum sentence Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts miscarriage of justice misfeasance in public office missiles misuse of private information mitochondrial disease MMR MMR vaccination modern slavery Mohamed monitoring powers monsanto montgomery mooring moral circle morality morocco mortgage fraud mortuaries motherhood motor neuron disease Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa movement for democratic change MP expenses Mr Brewer Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady Mr Justice Sharp MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Munchausen Munchausen by proxy murder murder reform music Musician's Union Muslim mustafa kamal mutation mutations myanmar MY Cannis my kingdom for a horse Myriad NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 Nadja Benaissa naked rambler Naomi Campbell narcolepsy National Health Act nationality National Origin National Pro Bono Week national security national sovereignty Natural England natural rights nature nature conservation naturism Nazi neanderthals necessary implication need for legal aid needs assessment negligence neighbour dispute Neuberger neural degeneration neurogenerative disease neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World news roundup new Supreme Court President NGO standing NHS NHS Risk Register NICE Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab niqab No Angels Noise Regulations 2005 non-justiciability nonhuman animals non voluntary euthanasia Northern Ireland Northern Irish Assembly notification requirements nuclear challenges nuisance nurse nursing nursing home obiter dicta Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt official solicitor of Rights Commission oil and gas oil spill olympics open justice oppress oppressive treatment OPQ v BJM orchestra orthodox schools Osama Bin Laden Osborn v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 ouster clause overseas aid Oxford University Palestinian Territories palliative care palliative sedation paramount consideration paramountcy principle parental responsibility order parental rights parenthood parents responsibility parking spaces parliament parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole parole board party funding passengers rights passing off passive smoking passport passport seizure pastor Terry Jones patent patents paternity Pathway Students patiets' rights Patrick Quinn murder Paul Chambers PCOs peace-keeping operations Pensions people for the ethical treatment of animals (Peta) performers' rights permanent injunction persecution persistent vegetative state personal data personal information Personal Injury personality rights Personal life perversity Pet Animals Act 1951 Peter and Hazelmary Bull Peter Gibson pet shops PF and EF v UK Philip Lawrence Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps photos photovoltaics physical and mental disabilities physical restraint physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy PJS placement order planning planning human rights planning system planning time limits plantagenet plebgate pleural plaques POCA podcast points poison Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance policing Policy Exchange report political advertising political judges political persecution politicians for hire Politics Politics/Public Order pollution polonium poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict porsche 917 portal possession order possession proceedings post mortem Posts power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy preliminary reference prerogative powers press Press Association press briefing press freedom Priest priests primary legislation Prince Andrew Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers prison rules Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door private disputes Private life private nuisance private use procedural unfairness Procedure proceeds of crime Professional Discipline professional indemnity Professional life Property property rights proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill protective costs Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals psychology psychotherapy Public/Private public access publication public authorities public authority public bodies Public Bodies Bill public figure public funding public inquiries public inquiry public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity public interest litigation publicity public law unfairness Public Order public powers public procurement Public Sector Equality Duty Public Services Ombudsman Putin putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 472 R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 Race race relations Rachel Corrie racial discrimination Racial equality radio radiotherapy Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate randomised controlled trial rape rape case raptors Ratcliffe 6 Ratcliffe on Soar Ratcliffe power station rating rationality rcs RCW v A Local Authority reasonableness reasons reasons challenges recent case law and news Recent posts reception conditions recognition of judgments recreational rights Redfearn v UK referendum reform refugee applications refugee crisis refugee status refusal of treatment Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages registration regulatory rehabilitation of offenders Reith Lectures Re J (A Child: Disclosure) [2012] EWCA Civ 1204 relgious freedom Religion religion in the courts religious beliefs religious discrimination religious freedom religious prosecution remedies renewables subsidies rent repeal reporting restrictions representation reproductive rights reproductive technologies reproductive wrongs rescue rescuer's claim resettlement of offenders resource allocation respect for family life responsibility in tort restrictions on exports restrictions on liberty results 2010 resuscitation retrospective application of the Human Rights Act retrospective legislation retrospective penalty retrospectivity rev paul nicholson reynolds Reynolds defence Re [2012] EWCA Civ 1233 richard III Richard O'Dwyer right of appeal rightsifno RightsInfo rights of children Right to a fair hearing right to a fair trial right to a home right to a remedy right to artistic expression right to a student loan right to autonomy right to autonomy and privacy right to die right to dies right to die with dignity right to dignity right to education right to expression right to family life right to food right to free enjoyment of possessions right to information right to liberty right to life right to peaceful enjoyment of property Right to Privacy right to private and family life right to refuse treatment right to respect for private life right to silence right to strike right to swim right to truth right to vote Rihanna Rio Ferdinand riots ripa rise of fascism risk risk assessment rival supermarkets Roma Roman Catholic Roman Catholic Church roman catholic schools Romania Rooney's Gold roundup roundup ready Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust royal dutch petroleum royal name Royal Oper House Royal Prerogative rule of law Rupert Jackson Rusal Russia russia and human rights Russian Federal Security Service Rutherford Ryanair s sadie frost Safari same-sex same sex parents same sex partnerships same sex relationship sanctions set aside sanctity of life Sandiford Sapiens Sarah Ferguson sark satire saudi arabia Savage (Respondent) v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Saville Report schedule 7 schizophrenia school building school surveillance schrems science scientific atheism scientific research scientology Scoppola Scotland Scotland Act Scotland Act 1998 Scotland Bill Scottish Government Scottish Human Rights Commission scottish landlord and tenant Scottish Parliament SCOTUS sea fishing seals Seal v UK search engines search powers secondary legislation secondary smoking secrecy Secretary of State Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP secret courts secret criminal trial secret evidence secret justice Secret trials sectarianism secularism security security cameras security services security vetting Sedar Mohammed segregation Select Committee on AI self-defence self-incrimination seminar sentencing September 11 serco serious harm sermon Seroxat service outside jurisdiction set-off Sewel Convention sex abuse sex ban sex ban low IQ sex offender Sex offenders sex register sexual abuse Sexual Offences sexual orientation sexual orientation regulations SFO investigation sfo unlawfulness shaker aamer Shamima Begum sham marriage shared residence order Sharon Shoesmith shetland shipping shipwreck Shirley Chaplin shooting shoulder shrug should trees have rights SIAC sihkism Simon Singh sir alan ward Sir Nicholas Wall Sir Peter six months rule slander slaughterhouses slavery smacking small claims court small solar Smith Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence [2012] EWCA Civ 1365 smog smoking ban Snyder v Phelps social and economic rights social benefits social housing socialite social media social security law social welfare social workers Solicitorsfromhell website solitary confinement soma somali pirates sources South Africa south african constitution sovereignty Sovereignty clause soviet union soybean Spanish properties spare room subsidy special advocate special advocates species specific performance spending cuts spielmann squatters Standing standing rules starvation state immunity statelessness statute statutory power Statutory purpose stay of execution stem cell research stem cells stem cell therapy Stephen Gough stephen sedley stepping hill hospital Sterilisation steve macqueen Steven Neary stobart-law stop and search stop powers Stormont Assembly storms Strasborug Strasbourg Strasbourg Court strasbourg damages pirates strasbourg law Strasbourg terminology strategic environmental assessment strike strike out Strikes student loans sturgeon subsidies Sugar v BBC suicide suicide act 1961 super injunction super injunctions supermax prisons superstition Supreme Court Supreme Court Live Supreme Court of Canada Supreme Court Scotland surgery surrogacy surrogacy arrangement surveillance swine flu Syria systemic violence Take That tallinn tariff Taser Tax tax avoidance tax discrimination tchenguiz technology Telegraph telephone preference service television justice tenancy tent city termination termination of pregnancy terror asset freezing Terrorism terrorism act terrorism act 2000 terrorism legislation terrorism prosecution terrorist finance terrorist threat terry pratchett Tesla testamentary dispositions The Bike Project the Catholic church The Corner House theism The Law in These Parts therapy Theresa May the right to privacy The Stig The Sun third countries third party appeals three way case time limits time limits in human rights Tobacco tobacco cartels Top Gear tort Torture torture inquiry totally without merit TPIM TPP tracking trade trade secrets trades unions trade union congress Trade Unions transexual transsexual transsexuals travel travellers travel restrictions treason treatment treaty treaty accession trial by jury trolling TTIP TTM v London Borough of Hackney & Ors Tugendhat tumour Turkey tweeting in court Twitter twitter in court Twitter Joke Trial UK UK citizenship uk constitution UK election UK Human Rights Blog UK Human Rights Roundup UKIP UK Jewish Film Festival ukraine UK Supreme Court UK Uncut ultra orthodox jews ultra vires UN unable to vote unacceptable behaviour policy unaccompanied minors unborn child UN Convention on the Rights of the Child unelected judges unemployment unfair consultation unfair dismissal unfairness at hearing Unison Unite United Against Fascism Group United Kingdom United Nations United States United States v Windsor universal declaration of human rights universal jurisdiction Universal Periodic Review University University Fees university of east anglia University of Southampton unjust and oppressive unlawful arrest unlawful detention unpaid work schemes UN Resolution unsolicited calls UPR US aviation US Constitution use as of right US Supreme Court vaccination Valkyries variants veganism vehicle breakdown vetting and barring vicarious liability victim victim status Victoria Climbie victorian charter Vienna airport vigilantism villagisation vinton cerf violence violist visa scheme vivisection voluntary euthanasia Volunteers voter compensation voters compensation voting voting compensation vulnerable Wagner Wakefield Wales War war correspondents ward of court War Horse water utilities Watts Wayne Rooney Websites welfare of child welfare of children welfare of the child welfare state welsh bill western sahara whaling What would happen if the UK withdrew from the European Court of Human Rights whimbrel whisky Whistleblowing WHO who is JIH whole gene sequencing whole life orders whorship Wikileaked cable Wikileaks wiklleaks Wild Law wildlife Wildlife and Countryside Act will William Hague William Marbury wills wind farms wind turbine Winterbourne View witchcraft withdrawal of treatment women's rights Woolas worboys Workers working time directive wrongful birth wrongful conception wrongful life WTO wuhan X AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA - 19010/07 - HEJUD [2013] ECHR 148 X Factor XX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 742 X Y and Z v UK Yemshaw Yildirim v Turkey Your freedom website YouTube yukos Yuval Noah Hariri Zakir Naik Zanu-PF Zero Hours Contracts ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Zimbabwe Zimbabwe farm invasions ZN (Afghanistan) (FC) and others ZZ [2015] CSIH 29 [2015] CSOH 168 £750


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: