Pushing a bike on a footpath.

[Tonyf33]

simple thing is don't get caught or just ignore the village idiots and carry on. what are they actually going to do..call the police and tell them what? It's not as if the rozzers are going to turn up at the scene within secinds is it by which time you've long gone and they aren't going to be interested anyway as it's a civil matter.
In the highly unlikely event of such persons trying to detain you that's false imprisonment and even less likely any violence against you would result in such negative publicity that it would completely backfire.

[thelawnet]

simple thing is don't get caught or just ignore the village idiots and carry on. what are they actually going to do..call the police and tell them what? It's not as if the rozzers are going to turn up at the scene within secinds is it by which time you've long gone and they aren't going to be interested anyway as it's a civil matter.

This chap is, to be put it mildly, not very popular with the local police. I would suggest that complaining to them about him might be the better approach.

He was charged last August with harassment along with a Haroun Salaman (also known as 'Harry Salaman'), also resident at the same address in Wisley.The charge related to leaflets posted to neighbours detailing the 2014 fraud conviction of (former) Chief Inspector Tanya Brookes, for various scams against retailers. http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey- ... or-7077323

This was done because Salaman has an earlier conviction for harassment based in part on evidence given by C.I. Brookes - "he was convicted of confronting a woman driver with whom he clipped wing mirrors. Mrs Brookes was a witness during that trial."

Salaman is possibly a retired legal professional (according to reports, they are respectively 'retired' solicitor and 'non-practising' barrister), and in 1998 in an unrelated matter, but illuminating nonetheless, took the United Kingdom to court in Strasbourg. The details are here http://caselaw.echr.globe24h.com/0/0/un ... 5-98.shtml but essentially the case amounted to Salaman was made beneficiary to a will, drawn up in June 1991. This will was revoked in August 1991 by a solicitor and witnesses, and Salaman spent the next 10 years arguing that those involved with the revocation, and several of those that later upheld it in courts up to the Court of Appeal were Freemasons, and therefore bound by some sort of fraternal bond, more powerful than the Rule of Law itself. The European Court of Human Rights, and all the British courts, held that this was a lot of nonsense, and he was made to pay costs at each turn.

In 2010, Salaman and Garland claimed to be writing a book about police corruption

http://blog.old-and-bold.info/?p=1860

saying
"Do you know of incidents of police abusing their position in order to secure an easy conviction in order to meet their targets, such as cases under section 5 for breach of the peace, or where evidence held by the police which was helpful to the defence has disappeared?"

Garland & Salaman were found not guilty of harassment, and speaking after the acquittal, Garland said that this was all about trying to get Mr. Salaman's conviction overturned, and not really directed at Brookes at all. All of which seems like quite the reaction to what sounds like a minor case of road rage that never appeared in the papers in the first place. But I suppose some people are very determined to prove their points, no matter how futile that might be.

[DaveP]

I've always understood that the use of footpaths was governed by rules - no cycling - by definition, no loitering - so technically no impromptu picnics, taking care with gates etc. etc.
But I have also understood, perhaps that should be misunderstood, that footpaths were there to be used as you go about your legitimate business, whether that is going to work - accompanied by any necessary equipment, pitchforks scythes etc. or a recreational stroll taking , well, whatever and the dog (under suitable control).

So how did this concern over "usual accompaniments" come about

And why isn't a bike a usual accompaniment for a cyclist, and why isn't pushing the usual way to move a bike when not ridden...

But mainly I'd be grateful if someone could supply or direct me to a potted history relating to my first question

[gaz]

I think the best answer you're likely to get is an earlier post on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=91557&start=60

[Bicycler]

I think the best answer you're likely to get is an earlier post on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=91557&start=60

Thanks gaz. Yes, that deals with 'usual accompaniments'

In answer to the more general question you are asking Dave, the key point is that most highways were never deliberately created (as new roads are today), they evolved over time by local custom. For whatever reason a particular route was used by the public. English common law accepts that after many years this customary public use becomes a public right and the landowner loses his right to prevent that public use.

Just as they were never explicitly created there was never a written set of rules detailing what was and was not permitted, but it was clear that the landowner retained some right to the land, Thus it was up to judges whenever cases came before them over the centuries to decide whether particular uses of highways were in keeping with the public's customary right of passage or whether they exceeded that and, therefore, constituted a trespass against the landowner. Thus, any 'rules' we see written are mostly just an accumulation of case law (judges' previous decisions) and (more often) supposition based upon that case law rather than expressly written down terms in an act of parliament.

Cycles are a lot more modern than some of this case law but it was decided that they were vehicles (carriages) and thus there is no right to ride along footpaths. If the landowner objects then it would be a trespass against him to cycle. Note that this is a civil matter, it is not an offence to cycle along a footpath. Indeed, if the landowner approves of or ignores such use over many years the public may acquire the right to cycle along the path.

A different class of user (eg. vehicles on footpaths) is fairly blatantly exceeding the public's rights. But there's also case law relating to what is included in the right of passage (eg. the 'usual accompaniments' criteria). Your summary is bang on when you say that public rights are traditionally viewed as being confined to the act of passage. Also included are acts incidental to that passage egs. sitting down for a rest, fixing a puncture etc.

Recent case law has moved away from that very narrow definition of public rights, accepting that highways are now routinely used for wider purposes. Whilst, as I said, trespass is not usually a crime and rarely serious enough to be brought to court, people have often been prosecuted for obstruction of highways and other offences at protests and gatherings. DPP v. Jones (1999) reached the House of Lords, then the highest court in the land, on appeal after protesters were charged for "trespassory assembly" (an offence under the Public Order Act 1986). Central to the appeal was the question "what are the limits of the public's rights of access to the public highway?" In considering this, the judgments http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... ones01.htm) contain helpful summaries of case law but, in allowing the appeal, deviate quite considerably from what had gone before:

In truth very little activity could accurately be described as "ancillary" to passing along the highway; perhaps stopping to tie one's shoe lace, consulting a street-map, or pausing to catch one's breath. But I do not think that such ordinary and usual activities as making a sketch, taking a photograph, handing out leaflets, collecting money for charity, singing carols, playing in a Salvation Army band, children playing a game on the pavement, having a picnic, or reading a book, would qualify. These examples illustrate that to limit lawful use of the highway to that which is literally "incidental or ancillary" to the right of passage would be to place an unrealistic and unwarranted restriction on commonplace day-to-day activities. The law should not make unlawful what is commonplace and well accepted...

...I conclude therefore the law to be that the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass: within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway.

So I think picnics are now fine as long as they aren't obstructive. Being careful with gates is a rule arising not in common law but out of common sense. It's also taught to every child in the form of the Countryside Code

[AlaninWales]

So I think picnics are now fine as long as they aren't obstructive. Being careful with gates is a rule arising not in common law but out of common sense. It's also taught to every child in the form of the Countryside Code

There is a footpath across my front garden which then continues across grazing land (fields). I would consider a picnic in my garden to be obstructing my enjoyment (I have had to ask walkers not to walk across the grass before now and a picnic would probably take place on my grass). I would expect that the farmers who keep sheep in the fields would hold that a picnic there was disturbing their stock. Taking out a sandwich or biscuit and putting the wrapper back in ones pocket or bag (instead of dropping it for me to clear up as many do) is acceptable, but the circumstances where a full picnic would be acceptable are (IMV) limited.

[beardy]

There is the rather famous case of a footpath running along the side of the Aintree race course.

You are trespassing if you stop and watch the races while walking along it. So there is a precedent that footpaths are only for the purpose of getting from one place to another, not places you are entitled to use for other purposes.

In practice of course we often picnic in places along them, some places are specially built for you to do exactly that but that is an addition beyond your "footpath rights".

[beardy]

Though to counter that post you are allowed to do "reasonable" things other than walking while on a footpath. So does picnicking fall in with stopping to eat a bar and have a swig from a bottle, stopping to tie a shoe lace or does it fall in with setting up a tent, disrupting the landowners' lawful activities (hunt protesting), watching the races for free, etc?

This brings us back to needing more (expensive) cases going to the courts to find precedent.

[AlaninWales]

Though to counter that post you are allowed to do "reasonable" things other than walking while on a footpath. So does picnicking fall in with stopping to eat a bar and have a swig from a bottle, stopping to tie a shoe lace or does it fall in with setting up a tent, disrupting the landowners' lawful activities (hunt protesting), watching the races for free, etc?

This brings us back to needing more (expensive) cases going to the courts to find precedent.

"to counter that post" ... mine? I thought I'd covered that part.

As someone who did a lot of walking as a teenager, I think I understand the limits, which are basically 'be reasonable'. I've never felt the need to picnic in front of someone else's house (I walked to get away from other people's houses ). Pulling your rucksack off for a rest and producing some refreshment whilst you catch your breath and look at the scenery is entirely different from laying out a rug and unpacking a picnic hamper. Neither would I do where I'm obstructing someone else's enjoyment of the view.

[beardy]

"to counter that post" ... mine? I thought I'd covered that part.

No, I was countering my own first post with my second post.

I dont think that what is reasonable will be quite agreed on by everyone. A quick ride through an inner city will show that many people do not normally live to the standards that landowners expect from people crossing the land, I have never understood why but many see nothing wrong with letting their dogs, foul and chase anything that moves, dropping litter, knocking walls down by climbing etc etc etc.

[AlaninWales]

Too true

[Bicycler]

I didn't consider the bit on picnics to be the main focus(!) But, yeah, reasonableness is in relation to the individual circumstances of the path. A lot of this comes down to common sense and respect for others. I can't imagine too many wanting to picnic obstructing a narrow path, nor in somebody's garden or surrounded by their cows! OTOH a picnic would be perfectly reasonable in an empty meadow. If interested, this issue of reasonableness is discussed at great length in the link I provided.

[Bicycler]

I dont think that what is reasonable will be quite agreed on by everyone.

Probably not everyone. Some visitors to the country behave appallingly. Equally, some landowners act with total disregard or outright contempt for public rights of way. Selfishness is too common in our society

[admin]

I dont think that what is reasonable will be quite agreed on by everyone.

No, which is why we have law courts, where people can take their disagreements and ask a judge. The judge then makes the ultimate decision about what is reasonable and what isn't, given all the evidence available to him, and for the specific circumstance in question. He may well use the decisions made in similar circumstances in the past to help him decide ("case law"), if there are such cases.

A disagreement would only be taken to court (at some expense to someone!) if one of the parties considered that the other party had behaved so unreasonably that it was worth a court case to settle the matter. So even mildly unreasonable behaviour is likely to go un-tested, unless someone really wants to prove a point and they think they have a good chance of winning the case.

[beardy]

So even mildly unreasonable behaviour is likely to go un-tested, unless someone really wants to prove a point and they think they have a good chance of winning the case.

I can see a picnic very much being the tipping point. From a landowners viewpoint I can see inoffensive picnics that you stop and chat with and offensive picnics deserving a "get orf my land".
As a picnicker I can see times when you feel that the landowner is being restrictive because they resent the very existence of the R of W (you have just climbed several layers of barbed wire) or they have turned a blind eye to your transgressions and let you continue with a promise to tidy up.
I think it is more due to the frequency of events on the owners land and past abuse than anything else.
So they may want to provoke a court action to settle the issue in the long term.