Trespassers will be proscecuted!

came across this out near Leyburn a few years back....anyone who wants to camp on his land can do it wthout me i reckon, he got his message across to me loud and clear...lol

I can only speak for WA. Trespass is covered by the Criminal Code. In short it is an offence to enter or be in a place without the consent of the owner, occupier or person that controls that place without lawful excuse. 'Place' covers land building's etc. The penalty in WA is up to 12 months imprisonment and a fine of up to $12,000. (I highly doubt anyone has ever been imprisoned for trespass though).

It is fairly complex because there is a whole raft of case law and common law that determines what a place is. Then you have the defence of honest mistake and so on.

To answer your question, it is highly unlikely you would be prosecuted in WA for simply camping in the wrong place. However if you blatantly ignore "Private Property" signs then you run that risk.

G`day Axle,

I know you are talking about years gone long ago when you refer to your father using a shotgun to convince people to leave his property.
But may I suggest that it would be a very foolish property owner that has a firearm in his hand while ordering people off the place the way gun laws are today.
Assault with a firearm is a far more serious offense than trespass, and you only have to be holding a firearm when making such an order for it to be deemed a threat and an assault with a weapon.
About 55 years ago when I was a bit of a lad I was ordered off a property by the owner pointing a .22 rifle at me, I calmly suggested that unless he was going to use it he should put it back in his car, after a short stand off he did so, so then I left.
These days if a similar thing happened I would ring 000 on my mobile and ask for the police to attend as I was being threatened by a bloke pointing a rifle at me.
I reckon I know who would get the biggest smack. lol

Scrubby,

The Stuber's of Palmerville didn't muck around with trespassers.

"I know my father used to have no tolerances to strangers on his land, and the old shot gun played a big part on convincing some to move on...lol."

Lol??? Redneck behaviour must be catching, or hereditary! What a stupid comment. Grow up.

BMJ

I think that you might find that "Trespass" only comes in to play when you refuse to move on when asked to do so by the property owner/agent in the presence of a Member of the Police Force.

Cheers

Merv

This whole trespass, access and right of way thing is far more complex than a lot of people want to know....AND...there are plenty out there..including governments..who will have a red hot go at bluffing.

There are a lot of fences, gates and signs errected on what amounts to public roads and public land....fences gates and signs that have no legal reason to be there.

There are also many gasetted and publicly acessable roads that pass thru ligitimate private property.

This has been discussed here and on other forums at length in the past.

There are situations where...." land owners"...have fenced and gated sections of public land, such as stock reserves, crown land or other such and tried to tell people that it is their property.....where it definitely is not.

Above all, you need to know, as best you can where you are and what the situation is with the road or land you are traveling thru.

There are some very interesting issues revolving arround gates, fences, signs and the like and they spin out into public liability, property rights and a whole raft of other issues.

That is without getting into the mine field of the right ( or lack there of) of governments to levy fines and pass legeslation regarding certain things...There are slabs of legeslation out there particularly in state and local government that is invalid or partly invalid because it conflicts with superiour legeslation...some of that relates to access.

All that said.....the whole " free camping freeloader" thing is a very real issue out there with a lot of people pushing their luck, going and camping where they reasonably should not....and/or not looking after the place linke thay should.
There are also areas where the impcat of the traveling public is pretty damn heavy..so you can understand various locals being a bit uppity.

cheers

I have no idea whatsoever about the actual law, so my comments are based on my sense of natural justice.

I think there is a big difference between walking onto someone's suburban quarter acre block to have a look at the garden beds, and someone else's 100,000 hectare station to have a look at wildflowers.

Similarly, camping on a fenced dairy farm in regional Victoria is clearly inappropriate, while camping on an unfenced cattle run in the Territory (well away from cattle or any improvements) seems harmless to me.

I would therefore expect any law governing "trespass" to take into account the location and size of the property, and the reason the person was "trespassing" (casing the house to plan a burglary, retrieving a football, stealing cattle, looking at wildflowers, shooting pigs, camping).

One example that affects me is camping in Central Australia. There are large distances involved, necessitating overnight stops. There is often no public land available for camping while the roads run for 100s of kms between wall to wall cattle stations or aboriginal land. I've heard the argument "you wouldn't want people camping on your front lawn". For the reasons above, I think it is entirely different. To close off millions of hectares of open bushland to people who merely want a place to roll out their swag for the night seems very "dog in the manger" to me.

I'd be interested to hear what others think.

Bob

Back during the great depression farmers were very welcoming to strangers as your never know when a fire will start and burn you out. No need for fire these days as simply shaking your fist at someone is assault and will get you a court date.

We are currently in a CP in Kakadu National park. Day before yesterday we took a guided boat tour of the East Alligator River. As you who have been there will know this river forms part of the border between Kakadu and Arnhem Land. The tour guide was an indigenous bloke from the Kakadu side of the river. Now I certainly aren't any expert on the subject and for a couple of good reasons I wasn't going to ask him if he was full blood or not. First of all I am of the opinion that it would be extremely rude and none of my business. Secondly he was literally twice my size and might have taken a great deal of offence and thrown me overboard to the crocs of which there was dozens. Actually he was one of the nicest blokes you could hope to meet, extremely knowledgeable about the area, it's animals and plants, and the traditional uses his people have for them. He even autographed the wife's jacket for her.
Anyway for the first part of the cruise he took us downstream to Cahills Crossing and explained how it came in to being. While we were there a couple of tour coaches went across into Arnhem Land along with a drilling rig and support vehicles. At that point he informed us about the need for the appropriate permits needed to enter. According to what he told us even though he was one of the traditional owners on the Kakadu side of the river he would need a permit to enter Arnhem Land as he was not of any of the family groups who live there and is not related by marriage or blood.
Pretty simple really, just ask permission and respect the decision whatever that may be. Arnhem Land is home to these people, regardless of how big it is. To me the same applies to station or farm land. Nothing to do with size. For that matter Kakadu has been handed back to the traditional owner family groups and leased back to the Federal government on a 99 year lease. They do welcome visitors to their land and are happy to show them "country". They just ask us to respect their culture and beliefs.
Just as an aside, there were a few heros standing about knee deep in the water flowing over Cahills Crossing fishing. One of the people on the boat asked our guide about the crocs where these guys were. His answer was pretty simple. "Bloody idiots, I was born and raised here and I wouldn't do that. Every so often one of them lose the lottery and their life."

Cheers
Pop

I believe Toffytrailertrash has it spot on. If you are asked to move on and you don't then you are trespassing. If you leave then you are not trespassing.

Regards,
Bob

The laws of 'trespass' seem complicated but in reality are quite simple , by law each and every property /house has to have reasonable access , if a property owner /leaseeplaces a sign & gate denying access he / she is within their rights to refuse access to the GENERAL PUBLIC but cannot deny access to Aust Post / Minning Co's / Telstra / Electricity Suppliers etc ,,, as for those complaining about being confronted by a rifle bearing property owner ,, out our way you never know when you might need to shoot some vermin or a beast that the trespasser has injured…..lol

Today's trespasser, tomorrow's Rottweiler bleep e. That sticks in my mind.

The main reason rural property owners get a bit touchy about trespassers is simple. In the past they would have had trespassers do damage to assets, and the farmer never get to see who it was. So he is suspicious of all trespasser, and unfortunately it disadvantages innocent people. But the bad apple in most situations effects us all in some way.

Just pull off the road a few meters and do the right thing. Most times you will be ok. If not negotiate a move on in the morning and apologize. Doesn't cost,much.