The present legal position in relation to trespass on land is that it is a civil wrong and, for the most part, falls to be addressed by means of civil remedy. In broad terms, that civil wrong may be defined as consisting of intentionally or negligently entering or remaining on, or directly causing anything to come into contact with, land in the possession of another without lawful justification. All of the elements I have just itemised are important in terms of establishing that the civil wrong has been committed.
I am aware from a parliamentary question which the Deputy asked earlier this week that she would like to see the cost and responsibility of establishing a right of occupation falling on the trespasser rather than on the landowner. However, within the civil code, there is a general principle that there are matters which a plaintiff must establish if he or she is to be successful in any court action and I think we would need to think very seriously before we depart from that principle, other than in the most exceptional of cases. With regard to costs, while it is the case that the award of costs is always within the court's discretion, there is also a general principle that costs follow the event and this would leave the way open for costs to be awarded to a litigant who was successful in obtaining an injunction directed towards securing the departure of those who might be trespassing upon his or her land.