Criminal Law Week

The following article is written for Police Professional by the editors of Criminal Law Week. Criminal Law Week is used by criminal justice professionals – including police officers, the CPS, judges and lawyers – to stay up to date with changes in the criminal law. Published weekly, each issue contains a comprehensive and concise roundup of new developments regarding offences, police powers, and the rules of procedure and evidence. It also contains commentary placing key developments in context. Criminal Law Week is published both online and in hardcopy. The online service (which includes a fully searchable database and access to updated and annotated key criminal legislation) is available free of charge to all police officers as part of a PNLD subscription at www.pnld.co.uk. For more information about Criminal Law Week or a sample hard copy issue please visit www.criminal-law.co.uk or call 01483 414040.

Can a person commit the offence of aggravated trespass in a building?

Yes, said the Divisional Court in Director of Public Prosecutions v Chivers (CLW/10/29/10).

The defendants, Daniel Chivers, Ian Fitzpatrick and Carl Von Tonda, entered the headquarters of the company BAM Nuttall in Camberley. The case against them included allegations that Mr Chivers had locked himself to a stair railing using a D-lock round his neck, that Mr Fitzpatrick had occupied a stairwell and that Mr Von Tonda had glued himself to the front door of the building.
They were charged with aggravated trespass, contrary to section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and with failing to leave land on which they were committing or participating in aggravated trespass, having been directed to do so by a police officer, contrary to section 69 of that Act.

At their trial, they submitted at the close of the prosecution case that there was no case to answer, as the offences were alleged to have been committed in various buildings and the 1994 Act required them to have been committed “on land”. The district judge accepted this argument and stopped the case, and the prosecution appealed.

The court said that, subject to the appearance of any contrary intention, Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 defines “land” as including buildings. It added that the amendment of section 68 (by sections 59(1) and (2) and 92 of, and Schedule 3 to, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003) to remove the words “in the open air” from the phrase “land in the open air” was clearly for the purpose of extending the ambit of the provision to buildings.

In addition, it said that, whereas section 61(9) provides that “land” in that section does not include (a) certain highways and roads, or (b) “buildings”, section 68(5) provides that “land” in that section does not include the roads and highways mentioned in section 61(9)(a), but makes no reference to section 61(9)(b), which omission was significant. It concluded that “land” in sections 68 and 69 of the 1994 Act includes buildings, and remitted the case to the magistrates’ court for the defendants’ trial to continue.

When can a Member of Parliament claim immunity from prosecution?

This issue was considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Chaytor, Morley, Devine and Lord Hanningfield (CLW/10/31/4).

David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine were members of the House of Commons. Lord Hanningfield is a member of the House of Lords. Following an investigation into their claims for Parliamentary expenses, they were all charged with false accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968.

At a preliminary hearing in the Crown Court at Southwark, they argued that the proceedings against them were precluded as a result of parliamentary privilege. Mr Justice Saunders rejected this argument, and they appealed agai