What options does St Paul’s Cathedral have regarding Occupy?
by David Carter on 16 November 2011
First off, let me be clear that I am not expressing any personal opinion regarding Occupy’s aims or methods. This article is a straightforward consideration of the options available to a land owner under circumstances such as these.
Given the number of protesters involved at St Paul’s, this is classed as a public assembly, i.e. there are twenty or more people gathered in a public place in the open air. Under the Public Order Act 1986, the police may not ban a public assembly, but they can impose conditions to restrict the place, duration and numbers as necessary to prevent a public disorder.
Who owns the land?
The ownership of the land that the protesters are on is unclear. It appears that a significant proportion of the tents are on an ancient thoroughfare owned by the City of London Corporation and maintained at public expense, and that the remainder are on land privately owned by St Paul’s Cathedral.
Those protesters on the land owned by St Paul’s are there without permission and are therefore trespassers, which raises the question of whether this is civil or criminal trespass. For it to be criminal trespass, the protestors would need to be guilty of either aggravated trespass or trespassory assembly.
Criminal or civil trespass?
Aggravated trespass is where the trespassers in intentionally acting in such a way as to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt other people from engaging in a lawful activity. The police have the power to remove those participating under the Public Order Act 1994. Although St Paul’s chose to close the cathedral because of Occupy’s presence, they cited health and safety reasons rather than aggravated trespass. It is possible that, by closing the cathedral, St Paul’s were hoping that a case for aggravated trespass could be made. If this were the case, it is a strategy that has not worked for them.
Trespassory assembly is held on land where the public has no or limited right of access and where there is a risk of serious disruption to the life of the community or a risk to an important site or building. Under these circumstances, the police can ban the protest under the Public Order Act 1994.
Taking these on board, it is more likely that Occupy’s protest would be considered civil trespass, where the primary remedy would be an order for possession.
The HMIC (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary) has an excellent infographic to illustrate criminal and civil trespass.
Public highways
Turning to the protesters on the public highway, as the local authority, the City of London Corporation has the power to remove obstructions from a highway. The definition of a highway includes the road, pavement, grass verge and private property used as a public thoroughfare. For an offence to be committed, only part of the highway need be blocked.
Options
The City of London Corporation is unwilling to act alone and appears to prefer to take joint action with St Paul’s. City of London could remove the protesters straight away from the area that is a public highway. St Paul’s is more likely to need to take court action to obtain an order for possession, which will take longer.
Given the differing viewpoints of City of London and St Paul’s, this situation might well take some time to resolve.
© Sheriffs High Court Enforcement Ltd. Please contact us to request permission to reproduce this article.
Disclaimer: The statements and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sheriffs High Court Enforcement Ltd, trading as The Sheriffs Office. Sheriffs High Court Enforcement Ltd does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. The author will not be held responsible for any comments posted by visitors to this site. Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. The author has used his best endeavours to make this article as accurate and complete as possible, but requests that the reader be aware that the law of England and Wales frequently changes. The author strongly advises the reader to take legal advice before embarking on any enforcement action.
