Director of Public Prosecutions v Catherine Cannon & Ors
The magistrate erred in law by requiring proof of ownership and precise boundaries to establish trespass for aggravated trespass under s.68 CJPOA 1994; possession and lack of consent from the occupier suffice. The evidence adduced (including testimony from a senior employee, physical security features, and lack of contrary evidence) was sufficient to prove trespass beyond reasonable doubt. No reasonable tribunal could have acquitted on the evidence presented.
Source excerpt
- Aggravated trespass
- Trespass to land
- Burden of proof
- Possession vs ownership
- Protest law