‘Redneck’ laws not needed to combat trespassers
For Fine Gael to suggest indemnifying any unprovoked assault, no matter how serious, irrespective of the circumstances, under the guise of self-defence, and treating trespass and housebreaking, which is a serious offence, as if they were the same thing is wicked.
The law of trespass is unnecessary and does not exist in many countries such as Scotland. Who is a trespasser – any unexpected visitor? And how do you know if you are trespassing? How do you know if land or a road is public or private? If a trespasser is causing any harm or nuisance, there are numerous laws under which they can be prosecuted. The law already entitles the use of “reasonable force” to evict a trespasser. Does FG propose the right summarily to inflict any serious injury, as long as it is “non-fatal”, on anyone camping, picnicking or taking a short-cut across their land?
We have a legal duty of care to others, and it is only reasonable that as long as access exists for people, children and animals, anyone putting them into danger, for example with savage dogs, poisons or boobytraps, should be held liable for their injuries, whether they are technically trespassing or not.
Despite the urban myths, the legal principle is that negligence has to be proven in cases of litigation for damages. However, cases sometimes succeed without negligence being proven. This is the real problem and needs to be stopped. It is typical of politicians who are unable or unwilling to tackle a problem, especially if it is exaggerated by media hysteria, to pass unnecessary and counter-productive laws in an attempt to trick the public that they are solving matters. Either FGl is playing the law and order card or they genuinely want to encourage a vigilante culture. The existing laws are perfectly adequate – we are not a race of rednecks and do not need or want this law.
Michael Job
Glengarriff
Co Cork




