MSD said:
Just because a tresspass is not found to be criminal doesn't mean that the landowner couldn't sue you for damages.
snip
Tentative conclusion: civil law might be more relevant than criminal law in many cases of tresspass. If you knock down a drystone wall by accident, Plod might not bother very much, but if the landowner sues you for the cost of rebuilding you might find yourself with a big bill.
Mark
Basic English Law is considered in cases of trespass, as is the purpose of the trespass (accidental, malcious, criminal, unintentional etc).
If you jump over a neighbours fence to retreive your childs ball, and damage some plants, you usually (if you are a decent person) offer to pay for the damage before the neighbour has a chance to consider sueing you. A deliberate trespass, with accidental damage.
If you fall off a wall (usually after a few too many drinks) and land in a garden, killing plants etc, it is accidental trespass and accidental damage, and still worthy of an apology and replacement plants.
If however, your neighbour has something in/on/under his property which you do not have access to, and you wait until he is not around to use his property, it is intentional. So the intentions are looked into.
If you trespassed to put out a fire that would have destroyed his property, you would be a hero. But if you end up repeatedly exploiting his property, you will become a criminal.
Then there is the aspect of Vicarious liability:
As an example try to imagine the following scenario
Several well meaning diggers use Mr X's land to gain access to some underground features. Whilst underground the diggers cross to land that Mr X does not own, and start digging (in a bid to re-open sealed passageways).
Mr X does not know that the diggers are on someone else's land, digging away like moles, and has not allowed the diggers access to his own land. The owner of the land they are digging under finds out that digging has occured under his/her/their land, and trace the source of entry to Mr X. Mr X is sued for allowing the diggers entry that in turn allowed them to trespass and damage Mr X's neighbours property.
Mr X is vicariously liable.
However, the diggers did not dig on the spur of the moment. They went equipped to dig, so this trespass can be dealt with in either the civil courts or the criminal courts, or both, and by both owners of the two properties if they so wish.
MINERAL RIGHTS:
A favourite topic of mine. Please do not get confused with land covenants, which restrict removal of certain items. You can have a covenant on a tree that stops it from being cut down, but that does not infer that the covenant owner owns the tree or has any legal access rights to that tree.
The same applies to land. owning a covenant restricting the removal of minerals/artefacts does not infer that the covenant owner owns the minerals or any access rights. The covenant owner, unless stated otherwise in the property deeds and covenant, will have no access rights to the property, and will not be able to assign any rights that affect the legal owners. It may be possible for the covenat owner to allow the extraction of certain items/minerals, if and ONLY IF the owner of the land agrees to allow access.
A covenant owner that encourages trespassers on land that he does not own, is as guilty as the people trespassing.
The above scenarios are not intended to relate to any person or persons past or present. Any similarities are coincidental.
