HC Deb 10 July 1998 vol 315 c663W
Mr. Timms

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on the exercise in London of the powers available under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. [49495]

Mr. Michael

The decision whether or not to use the powers available under section 61 is an operational one for the Commissioner.

No guidance has been given specifically to the Commissioner. However, Home Office Circular 45/1994, was issued to all Chief Officers. This draws their attention to an undertaking made, by the then Government, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament: The decision whether or not to issue a direction to leave is an operational one for the police alone to take in the light of all the circumstances of the particular case. But in making his decision, the senior officer at the scene may wish to take account of the personal circumstances of the trespassers; for example, the presence of elderly persons, invalids, pregnant women, children and other persons whose well-being may be jeopardised by a precipitate move".

The Metropolitan Police issued guidance to their officers in a written notice on 11 August 1995 which contains the following points: The powers under section 61 are discretionary. The type of land. It may be more appropriate to use the powers where trespassers "invade" a person's front garden than if they are camping on derelict land. The length of time that the trespassers have been on the land. It will be much less appropriate to use the powers if the trespassers have been on the land for several weeks than if they have just arrived. Policing problems which arise from the presence of the trespassers on the land, namely public disorder, crime or obstruction of the highway (bearing in mind that the offence does not relate to the highway). Good policing reasons for moving the trespassers may well be valid. It should be borne in mind that the use of the power under the Act may have the effect only of moving the problem to a different site. Indeed it could make matters worse. The police should not usurp the functions of the civil course. The use of the powers under section 61 are not appropriate where there may be a genuine dispute as to the right to the possession of the land. In such a case, the matter should be left to the civil courts to determine in the normal way. The officers should certainly consider the effect of a direction to leave land. If the trespassers comply with the direction, the use of it may well be successful. However, if they do not comply the officer should consider what steps it is proposed to take. It may not be practical to arrest all the trespassers, there may well be children or animals involved. Arresting adults may mean that provision will have to be made for the care of children or animals. Furthermore, arresting large numbers could lead to major disorder with the resulting problems that that would cause. If it is decided to arrest some or a large number of the trespassers, consideration should be given as to what will happen to vehicles and other property. It must be remembered that some of these vehicles will be used as homes by the trespassers. Even though section 62 provides a power to remove the vehicles, they have to be put somewhere. It would seem undesirable that police stations yards or car pounds should be turned into encampments for travellers or gipsies".

Forward to