Heavier penalties included in new trespass bill

Press, 20 July 1979, Page 4

Heavier penalties included in new trespass bill

PA ~ ■ Wellington Sharp increases in fines for trespassing are contained in the Trespass Bill introduced in Parliament yesterday. The Bill, which consolidates and amends the Trespass Act (1968) increases the maximum fine for trespassing after failing to leave when warned to do so from $2OO or three months’ jail to $lOOO or three months’ jail. The maximum fine for trespassing after a “warning off” goes up from $2OO to $lOOO or three months’ jail. The penalty for disturbing domestic animals is raised from $lOO to $5OO or one month’s jail for wilful or reckless disturbance, and a fin ; of $3OO or one month’s jail where the disturbance is caused by a dog, weapon or vehicle.

People who wilfully shut open gates or open shut gates will be liable to a maximum fine of $2OO. The Bill authorises the police to bring prosecutions, as well as land occupiers, and allows weapons to be confiscated. The Minister of Justice (Mr McLay) who introduced the Bill, which was referred

'to the Lands and Agriculture Select Committee, said the 1968 act was the first general attempt to deal with f he problem of trespass, particularly concerning farm land. The t, originally introduced as the Criminal Trespass Bill, was highly controversial. It was no secret that the act in its final form was a compromise between two opposed schools, he said. “On one hand there was the farmer and property owner insisting on those rights incidental to ownership or possession, and on the other the sporting lobby insisting on the retention of their traditional rights of free access to the countryside.” he said. Mr McLay said the Bill introduced yesterday mainly implemented recommendations of a sub-committee set up to investigate the trespass aspects of a Caucus committee report on noxious animals tabled in 1974.

■~’hile the departmental sub-committee had mainly agreed on certain reform proposals, which had been incorporated in the bill, the proposal that trespass with a gun or dog be made an

offence in itself had been left unresolved. But that had largely been resolved by provisions in Ce Wild Animal Control Act (1977) the Minister said. “This bill then, in spite of continued pressure to have tresp-..- with a gun or dog made an offence per se (in itself), does not make provision for such an offence, and in this respect maintains the balance between competing interests that the Trespass Act (1968) endeavc_red to strike,” Mr McLay said.

The big rise in some penalties was necessary because there was still an acute trespass problem in some parts of the country, he said.

“To a large extent this has been caused by irresponsible and unrestrained commercial hunters attracted by high venison prices and it has been necessary to set the penalties, having regard

to the high prices being obtained for venison and live animals,” Mr McLay said. The new bill stipulates how warnings to trespassers are to be made and makes it clear that the typical sign “trespassers will be prosecuted” will not be sufficient. Warnings must be given to individuals and not by a sign or newspaper advertisements.

There is a new offence of laying poison on private land without authority, with a maximum fine of $3OO or one month’s jail.

Mr McLay said a provision in the bill enabling a court to warn people oft property could be used irt some situations of domestic violence, and was an added weapon in the court’s armoury in this situation. Mr F. Rogers (Lab., Onehunga) said the Bill was very good. i