Squatters
| Published date | 01 May 1970 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X7004300502 |
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Date | 01 May 1970 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
J.
C.
WOOD,
LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield
SQUATTERS
Our Legal Correspondent gives his views on a difficult and very
topical issue.
"They might find themselves in premises they had not
chosen and did not like" Shaw, J. 1969
Recent well publicized occupation of empty premises by squatters
has directed attention to the law relating to the eviction of tres-
passers. The law has proved to be old, fragmented
and
obscure. A
full survey would require a considerable knowledge of legal history
and
of procedure. This article is aimed at a brief outline of the
position, avoiding the difficult conceptual
and
procedural concepts,
so it must only be read as a general guide. Indeed for similar reasons
the leading text books on the appropriate subjects such as real
property
and
tort
have only a few sentences on this problem.
Four
cases have been reported in The Times within the
past
few
months. None
of
them have been printed as yet in the All England or
Weekly Reports. They all concern attempts to use the courts to
secure the ejectment of squatters. Several points of the law are clear.
The basic distinction' is between a person entitled to possession of
land who is in occupation of it
and
one who is not.
If
atrespasser is
found by the occupier of land his powers to eject him are firmly
established. The trespasser is to be asked to leave and given an
opportunity to do so. If he remains such force as is reasonably
necessary may be used to eject him. If it is apparent
that
the purpose
of the trespasser is to dispossess the occupier without lawful right
then the land may be defended. Defence may even go to the lengths of
killing the trespasser, R. v. Hussey (1924) 18 Cr. App. R. 160.
Squatters, however, take over property not in occupation. Al-
though in basic legal terms it might be expected
that
the person
truly entitled to possession should be able to recover it, by reasonable
force if necessary, this rule no longer applies.
It
still applies to
chattels
but
a series of Forcible Entry Acts
1381-1623,
have made
it illegal to repossess land in this way. The reason for these Acts is
obvious. Were the rule to remain there would potentially arise a
series of pitched battles, of sieges and storming of property. To
recover land it is necessary to bring
an
action in the courts.
The four reports in The Times are all of such actions. The problem
is a simple one. The squatters are generally unknown either to the
owner or to the police; they resist service of judicial process so it is
impossible to serve notices on them personally. A writ of possession
is effective against persons named on the writ and the courts want to
May 1970 211
To continue reading
Request your trial