Thread by @TweetingYet

I'm going to tackle Clause 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. This is the clause that deals with travellers.

I am going to begin with this: I do not pretend to know enough about the issues facing travelling communities (I include Gypsies, Roma and all others)

to be able to say anything very much about how much this will impact on them. My experience outside of Court is that each year a group of travellers has moved onto the village green where I live. Some get irate, I don't.

So I am going to restrict myself to the provisions of the Bill and make no comment on the reasonableness or otherwise of them. I simply don't know enough about their lifestyle or the extent to which it might interfere with others in some places.

Clause 61 creates a new offence. In order to commit it, you first have to meet certain requirements for it to apply to you and then be asked by the right person to leave.

To whom does it apply then?

It apples to adults who are residing or intending to reside on land that is not theirs, while having one or more vehicles with them and without the consent of the occupier of the land. It clarifies later that in the case of common land, the occupier is the local authority.

If you meet those criteria then you can be asked to leave if any of the following applies:

a. significant damage or disruption has been or is likely to be caused by your residing there or by your conduct conduct while you do so

b. your conduct while residing there is or is likely to be offensive and cause significant distress.

I suspect that I may not be alone in seeing echoes of the Bill's clauses on protest and public nuisance in this provision...

Interpretations:
"damage" includes damage to the land, to property on the land or environmental damage, including littering, smells, "deposits of waste" and "excessive noise".

"offensive" conduct is "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour"

or "the display of any writing, sign, or other visible
representation that is threatening, abusive or insulting".

"Residing" includes doing so temporarily and it does not matter if you have another residence elsewhere.

The last few tweets set out the conditions for the offence. No offence is created that makes this kind of occupation of land an offence. The offence is coming up.

If those conditions are met and the occupier or police requests that you leave then it an offence:

a. not to leave as soon as reasonably practicable; or

b. having left, to return within 12 months with the intention of residing on that land without the occupier's permission.

In either case, it is only an offence if you have or intend to have at least one vehicle with you. And for the purposes of this law, "vehicle" specifically includes caravans...

It is a defence to show that they had a reasonable excuse for not leaving or for returning.

This proposed offence carries a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment. That is the same as the current maximum for "attacking a statue", if anybody is interested.

The Bill also grants powers for the police to seize and retain until the end of criminal proceedings:

a. any of the accused's property that is on the land;
b. any vehicle, wherever it might be, that the officer suspects the the accused had or intended to have on the land.

Property thus seized can be forfeited by Court order if convicted.

The seizure powers are certainly strict.

Overall, then, the Bill makes it an offence not to leave and stay away from somebody else's land if they don't want you residing there and you are likely to cause damage or act in an offensive way that distresses people.

It is plainly aimed at the travelling communities.

Even more than most provisions, it is a matter of personal views as to whether you think that this law is reasonable or not. As I said, I do not pretend to know enough about the communities affected (on either side) so shall leave it there.