Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:14 am
Time: 1:14 am
Results for trespassing
2 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Options for Dealing with Squatting Summary: Squatting is a form of trespass. It usually involves the deliberate entry and occupation of a building without the consent of the owner or the occupier of that property. At present there is very little information held centrally about the number of people who squat, their reasons for doing so or the types of buildings that tend to attract squatters, but the level of public concern about this issue has led the Government to believe this may be a growing problem in residential and non-residential property. Although trespass is not in itself a criminal offence (it would normally be regarded as a civil wrong) there are already a range of offences in place to deal with the criminal activities of squatters. Owners and occupiers of property can also pursue civil procedures to get them evicted. The Government recently published new guidance on the Direct-Gov and Department for Communities and Local Government websites for people seeking to evict squatters from their properties, but it recognises that more may need to be done to reassure the public that the law is on their side. The purpose of this consultation is therefore twofold: to gather more information about the nature and extent of squatting in England and Wales; and to invite views on whether, and how, existing criminal and civil mechanisms should be strengthened to deal with it. Criminalising squatting is one option that the Government is considering, but depending on the views of consultees there may be other options that could be explored. For example, the Government could consider whether existing offences and civil mechanisms relating to squatting could be strengthened or whether the problems caused by squatters would diminish if existing offences, such as criminal damage and burglary, were rigorously enforced. The extent of the problem caused by squatters is discussed in more detail in chapter 1. The existing law is summarised in chapter 2; possible options for dealing with squatters are set out in chapter 3; and the potential impact of these options on the enforcement authorities and other organisations is discussed in chapter 4. The consultation focuses on squatters who occupy buildings and their immediate surroundings. It does not concern unauthorised encampments on open land which raise different questions of law and practice and are already subject to legislation – in particular, sections 61-62E of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The consultation is aimed at anyone who might be affected by these proposals; anyone who has been the victim of squatting; and anyone who has experience (positive or negative) of using the current law or procedures to get squatters evicted. The views of the law enforcement agencies, local authorities, housing associations, homeless charities or other organisations which might be affected by these proposals would also be particularly welcome. Details: London: Home Office, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Consultation Paper CP 12/2011: Accessed July 18, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/options-dealing-with-squatting.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/options-dealing-with-squatting.pdf Shelf Number: 122081 Keywords: HomelessnessSquatting (U.K.)Trespassing |
Author: Weine, Stevan Title: No-Trespass Policies in Public Housing Summary: Increasingly, public housing authorities (PHAs) are implementing "no-trespass" policies designed to combat crime by non-residents in their developments. These policies allow PHAs to develop "ban lists" of unwanted non-residents who may be cited for criminal trespass if found on PHA property. Implementation of such policies may conflict with resident's rights to have visitors, and invitees' rights to visit. The effects of these policies on crime, perceptions of safety, and associational rights are unknown. Through legal analysis and case studies of three PHAs-Yonkers, NY; Chester, PA; and Annapolis, MD-I investigate the impact of these policies on residents, PHA officials, project managers, police, and people who are banned. My findings suggest that a no-trespass policy, narrowly targeted and as part of a larger security strategy, can promote perceptions of safety among public housing residents. Strong, stable PHA management and a collaborative relationship with residents are key to successful implementation. With due process protections and clear procedures for assuring that tenants' rights to have visitors are not violated, it can pass constitutional muster. Whether it is an effective, or cost-effective, form of crime control is very much in debate. Implemented in isolation, however, a no-trespass policy is not likely to be effective in reducing crime and promoting perceptions of safety, and runs the risk of being used to police residents, rather than to protect them. If the policy is not narrowly tailored, it can divide families unnecessarily and discourage familial ties that create stability in a community. No-trespass policies can be blunt weapons against crime that cast very wide nets over a community, restrict movement, and interfere with family relationships. Applied arbitrarily and targeted indiscriminately, these policies are not likely to be constitutional. PHAs should consider whether no-trespass policies are worth the considerable resources needed to implement and maintain them, and reassess how these policies fit the larger objective of fostering safe places in which to live and raise a family. Longer-term safety may be better served by developing residents' human and social capital, and by providing social supports and services, rather than on banning criminals from PHA property. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2016. 203p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 17, 2017 at: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3876&context=edissertations Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3876&context=edissertations Shelf Number: 145561 Keywords: Crime PreventionPublic HousingTrespassingZoning Ordinances |