Page 348 - 2. 2013 New 26-05-21 No Table

Thirdly, you have asked me to consider the merits of making an application to dismiss the charges
against you based on the fact that you entered a building that was being squatted in and therefore you
were not a trespasser.
Fourthly you stated that the photographs sent to you were of poor quality and were in black and
white.
Fifth, you complained that the barrister did not present your case properly.
Six, you requested your case papers from the Winchester case. I will deal with each of the points that
you have raised and the agreed action.
Point (1) I can make this application to remove the reporting the condition. I can source a map from
the internet to show the distance and I can also show bus prices on an Oyster card £2.80 per day in
fares as I assume only one bus is required. If I am wrong in this assumption can you please confirm by
email the number of buses and the routes that the buses take at your earliest convenience. Can you
also please ask your mother to email over the letters that you have sent to the Benefits Agency
appealing and requesting the re-instatement of your benefits as this will assist my application.
Point (2) Again I can make an application to suspend your curfew on the dates of the festival but
again I need the documentation from the Council regarding this to support your application.
Point (3) I will have to consider this point in more detail but if I can illustrate an analogy to you
which I believe that the Judge will also use. Your case is that you were not a trespasser when you
entered the building due to notices on both buildings which confirmed they were legal squats. You
may well be right. The law on burglary consists of entry to a building or part of a building, as a
trespasser with intent to either steal item, cause GBH or doing unlawful damage or actually does any
of the aforementioned. I will deal with the trespass point firstly. The notices in relation to the legal
squat may well highlight that you were not a trespasser when you entered. (I confess that I need to
research this point) I think that we can also agree that the squatters were not the owners of the
building and had not made any claim for adverse possession. I have included some information on
adverse possession for your ease of reference at the end of this email. Even if we can establish that
you had a right to be in the building it does not follow that you had a right to any of the contents.
These would still remain the property of the owner, unless you can provide me with the relevant
section / legislation / case law. There are a number of instances when a person can enter premises
initially by invitation but once they do an act contrary to the right of entry, they then become a
trespasser. i.e. a customer in a shop reaching over the counter and taking a sales assistant's purse /
phone. This is burglary because the person has stolen property
(a) that was not for sale
(b) that was in a part of the building where the public did not have access. The other stumbling block
to an application to dismiss is your police interview. You accept presence and you accept purchasing
items of garden furniture from a male called Mohammed. You state that you have a receipt. This is a
trial point and one to be left to the jury as to whether you believed that Mohammed was lawfully
164,
Sim-DWP.doc (27.50 KB)
Sim-Baljit-saimbi-Income-surport.doc (25.50 KB)
165,
Prior to the coming into force of the LRA 2002, a squatter could acquire the right to be registered as
proprietor of a registered estate if they had been in adverse possession of the land for a minimum of
12 years. However, the doctrine of adverse possession did not fit easily with the concept of
indefeasibility of title that underlies the system of land registration. Nor could it be justified by the
uncertainties as to ownership which can arise where land is unregistered; the legal estate is vested in
the registered proprietor and they are identified in the register. The LRA 2002 has created a new
regime that applies only to registered land. This new regime is set out in Schedule 6 to the Act. It
makes it more likely that a registered proprietor will be able to prevent an application for adverse
possession of their land being completed. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the
new regime; the remaining sections of this guide discuss it in more detail.
• Adverse possession of registered land for 12 years of itself will no longer affect the registered
proprietor’s title.
• After 10 years’ adverse possession, the squatter will be entitled to apply to be registered as
proprietor in place of the registered proprietor of the land.