DPP v Chivers

For the purposes of aggravated trespass under section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, “land” includes buildings. The starting point is the general definition in the Interpretation Act 1978, which includes buildings unless a contrary intention appears. The specific exclusion in section 68(5) concerns highways and roads excluded by section 61(9)(b); it does not incorporate the separate building exclusion in section 61(9)(a). The removal of the words “in the open air” by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 confirmed that the offence extends to trespass in buildings. The provision was neither ambiguous nor contrary to legal certainty.

Individuals were prosecuted in the Northwest Surrey Magistrates’ Court for aggravated trespass under section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and failing to leave land under section 69. The alleged trespasses occurred inside buildings. The District Judge dismissed the informations, holding that “land” excluded buildings by reference to section 61(9).

The prosecution brought a case stated appeal. The central issue was whether, following amendment by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, “land” in sections 68 and 69 included buildings.

1. The appeal was allowed. The informations were to be remitted, if requested, for the hearing to continue.
2. “Land” in section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and consequently in section 69, includes buildings. Section 68 contains no complete definition of land. The applicable starting point is the definition in the Interpretation Act 1978, which includes buildings unless a contrary intention appears.
3. Section 68(5) excludes highways and roads excluded from section 61 by section 61(9)(b). It does not refer to the distinct exclusion of buildings in section 61(9)(a). The words “in this section” introducing section 61(9) confine that exclusion to section 61 unless another provision expressly adopts it.
4. The removal of “in the open air” from section 68 was intended to remove the former limitation which excluded buildings. The amended provision was therefore clear on its proper construction. There was no need to rely on the Parliamentary explanatory note, and no issue of legal certainty arose.
5. Mr Justice Blair agreed that the provision was unambiguous. The court considered that the public interest required the proceedings to be completed despite the passage of time.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the prosecution’s case stated appeal against the magistrates’ dismissal of the informations and directed remittal for continuation of the hearing.
• Northwest Surrey Magistrates’ Court: the District Judge dismissed the informations at the close of the prosecution case, holding that “land” did not include the buildings concerned.