Access to land – some lessons from around Scotland

This post is by Malcolm Combe. It was updated on 3 August 2017 to link to a report that the gates mentioned below will now remain open.

The issue of people taking access to land for passage or other activities can be both a practical and an emotive issue.

From the perspective of landowners, land managers or any other occupiers, there might be a fear of irresponsible land access causing damage to their property or wildlife, not to mention the simple fact that access takers could get in the way of a chosen land use. There might also be issues that are more difficult to quantify, such as concerns relating to privacy or safety.

From another (non-owner) perspective, members of the public might grudge being denied access to large swathes of the outdoors for recreation or to learn about wildlife, or they might wish to get from A to B in a simple and non-intrusive way. Depending on the circumstances, they might baulk at being lumped together with anyone not taking access responsibly, especially if they are willing and able to conduct themselves in a way that will not interfere with a landowner’s chosen activity. There may also be historical, cultural or even health-related reasons why people feel access to land that is not owned by them is something that nevertheless matters.

Every so often, stories will emerge online or in the press about access issues that can set these tensions against each other. This might occur when a path is blocked or access is otherwise restricted. Some recent situations in Scotland serve as an opportunity to discuss and reflect on the regulation of access to land.

The settings for these stories are very different, but the underlying legal points are similar. The first story relates to the installation of gates at the southern extension of the Speyside Way in the Scottish Highlands (which opened in 2015). The second relates to Elderslie Golf Club in Renfrewshire.

No particular comment is offered on either situation here. Rather, this blog will set out some points about the law in Scotland, then illustrate how that law might apply with reference to those situations.

Regulating Access to Land

Different legal systems have different rules to regulate access to the outdoors. In Scotland, public rights of way might allow people to travel from one public place to another (often along traditional routes to, for example, a market, kirk or cemetery). Such rights of way continue in the modern era, but the most important law is the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Part 1 of the 2003 Act liberalised access to Scotland’s outdoors by allowing for recreational, educational and in some cases commercial access to be taken over land, with an additional right to cross land (separate to existing rights of way), without the owner of that land’s prior consent.

That sounds striking, but the 2003 Act does not establish a free for all. These rights are subject to two important qualifications.

The first qualification is that the accessed land must not be excluded from the scope of the law, owing perhaps to the characteristics of the land. The key provision is section 6, listing a variety of situations where access rights are incompatible with the land in question. Land where there is a building or where crops are growing are thus excluded, as is land that has been manicured as a bowling or putting green. (Golf courses as a whole are something of a special case – more on that later.) The scope of the law is clear though: access rights will apply, unless they are excluded. This means they apply across much of Scotland, Highland and Lowland, rural and urban. (The urban dimension might be of particular interest to observers from other jurisdictions.)

The second qualification is that any access taken must be responsible. As detailed in section 2 of the legislation, access is not responsible if it unduly interferes with the rights of others. Understandably, that would include the rights of the landowner, but it also includes other access takers as well. Guidance as to what is responsible can also be taken from the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (PDF). Furthermore, the statute provides that some conduct can never be classed as responsible (such as being on land in a motorised vehicle). Meanwhile, a landowner is under certain reciprocal obligations to use and manage land in a manner which is responsible in relation to access rights. And again, there are certain things that will not be classed as responsible management, including actively placing impediments to access (more on that below).

I could quite happily write about all of this at length. Rather than do that, I will direct eager readers to my other posts about how this law operates, including on this blog – in the context of the augmented reality game Pokémon Go – and on my personal blog – about the possible introduction of a charging regime to access a country park. I will now consider the specific examples.

The Speyside Way*

It has been reported that gates have been installed at Kinrara, where a path runs between Newtonmore and Aviemore (see here, here and here, photos available here). There is no indication that irresponsible access is a problem at Kinrara. There is no particular question of this land being excluded from access rights (and, in fact, there is a strong indication to the contrary). Was the landowner entitled to take these steps?

The Bogach
“The Bogach, Kinrara Estate” © Dorothy Carse and licensed for reuse.

The first thing to consider is section 14 of the 2003 Act. It seeks to stop landowner interference with access rights, and it does so by mandating that no landowner shall act in a manner that directly prevents or deters any person entitled to exercise access rights from doing so. In particular, it notes a landowner shall not put up any sign or notice, position or leave at large any animal or (for present purposes) “put up any fence or wall, or plant, grow or permit to grow any hedge, tree or other vegetation”. This provision can be enforced by the relevant access authority: in this case, the Cairngorms National Park. (In terms of the legislation, the bodies charged with upholding access rights will either be the relevant local authority or (if the area is in a national park) the relevant national park.)

This is not to say a landowner cannot do anything at all on land in a way that could affect access: legitimate land management activities are allowed. A landowner will only fall foul of section 14 when taking steps that are solely or primarily aimed at the prevention of responsible access. Erecting certain types of barrier might even be allowed: for example, in one case in the Black Isle a barrier erected to prevent equestrian access (in a way that would churn and damage a path) was ruled to be acceptable in court (in the particular circumstances of that case, which included an alternative and nearby route for horses). Whether that is a suitable precedent for Kinrara will be revealed in the coming weeks: from a distance, my initial view is that is does not.

Another factor at play at Kinrara is that land there has already been subject to a “Path Order” in terms of section 22 of the 2003 Act. This is a little-used section of the statute found within a series of provisions about the role of access authorities. This has been the only usage of such an order in Scotland. (The related back story caught the attention of the press at the time.) It specifically allows an access authority to delineate a path where access rights are exercisable. Naturally, this is an ongoing situation and any comment on it must be ventured with caution. I have not visited the site and I am not sure exactly where the gates are, but this does seem to be a strong indication that access rights apply at or around the barriers. What can also be said with confidence is the overall effectiveness of the legislation is being put to the test here and many people (myself included) will be watching developments closely. Lastly, if for whatever reason matters stall, it will be recalled that section 16 of the 2003 Act allows for compulsory acquisition of land by access authorities (with due process) for the enabling or facilitation of the exercise of access rights.

*UPDATE 3 August 2017: The website of the Cairngorms National Park Authority now reports that agreement has been reached to keep the three gates open.

Access to Elderslie Golf Club

The issue of a new fence at Elderslie Golf Club has not had the same coverage as Kinrara. It is fair to say it is not as high profile – no offence to my friends in Renfrewshire, but the Black Cart-side Way has yet to gain the same status as the Speyside Way. Nevertheless, it has prompted some reaction locally, as these photos taken from BBC journalist and UWS Teaching Fellow Annie McGuire’s Twitter account show.

DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING
Careful now.

QUICKER THAN TRUMP

Ms Maguire has created a number of YouTube videos (here, here and here), which give some indication of the setting. I understand there is an alternative access but, per the third video, this is not convenient for all residents. It can also be noted that Elderslie Golf Course does feature on the network of core paths in Renfrewshire (see path 8 on Core Paths Plan Map 6 here, PDF here). This is a path that (in this case) Renfrewshire Council has marked out as being part of a system of paths that gives the public sufficient access to its local authority area, so at least some degree of access around Elderslie has already been planned for.

Can access be taken to a golf course? As already noted, putting greens are excluded. The rest of the course is not excluded, although the twist with golf courses is that access is only allowed for the purposes of crossing the land. Recreational and other activities that involve staying on the land are specifically classed as not responsible. This means there is a right to walk across a golf course without the golf club’s prior permission, but if you want to stop for a picnic you had better ask.

What does this mean for a new fence at Elderslie Golf Club? It means section 14 comes into play again. That is to say, fencing that is wholly or mainly aimed at deterring or preventing access can be subject to enforcement action by the access authority.

That prompts an important question: what is the fence for? Sure, stopping for a picnic on a fairway might not be very sensible, and even dashing across a fairway has certain risks. As such, a golf club and its golfers will not want people to put themselves at risk of injury (and in turn put themselves at risk of an occupiers’ liability or other claim for damages). Signage to this effect could be a way to deal with this, rather than completely restricting access. That being said, I understand from Twitter correspondence and the local press that there has been a degree of antisocial behaviour on site, including damage to the course. Outside looking in, I wonder if a complete restriction of access is the only way to deal with this. Could restriction at certain hours of the day be more appropriate? That was the approach adopted in a sheriff court case about an access route in Glenrothes, Fife. (At least one Twitter correspondent has agreed this might be a plausible solution in Elderslie.)

Meanwhile, it can be noted in passing that there might be other issues at play. Ms McGuire has been (metaphorically) digging around and there may have been some historic local access at Elderslie Golf Course for allotments of some kind. It is also possible that there are private rights as between the golf course and the neighbouring land (linked to those allotments or otherwise). Such rights could only be ascertained by looking at the title deeds for the various properties or knowing a bit more about historic usage. Or there might be a public right of way, which can spring into being after twenty years of continuous use by the public (the Twitter account @ElderslieGrapes has asserted that access at Glenpatrick Road “has been there for 40+ years”). All of this is speculation, so it seems appropriate to leave matters there.

Conclusion

Whilst these two examples can be viewed as local interest stories, they do serve to highlight various issues that can arise. It might be that a similar access issue crops up near you in the future. If and when this occurs, a greater understanding of Scotland’s access regime might stave off future access disputes, perhaps by preventing local misunderstandings or over-corrections escalating into full-blown litigation. After all, going to court is not a walk in the park.

Image credit and full details for “The Bogach, Kinrara Estate”: copyright Dorothy Carse and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence, original here. Image credit for the signage at Elderslie: Annie McGuire.

Reflections on “Land Reform: Legal, Historical and Policy Perspectives”

This blog post is by Malcolm Combe (Lecturer) and Kieran Buxton (Year 4 LLB (Hons) Candidate, University of Aberdeen). A version first appeared in Issue 177 of the Scottish Planning & Environmental Law journal (October 2016) at page 104.

On 26 August 2016, the University of Aberdeen hosted a conference about one of the hottest potatoes in Scottish politics at the moment: land law reform. The conference, and a related lecture on land reform and the environment the previous evening, brought together stakeholders with a variety of perspectives, experiences and interests, including the Scottish Government and representative groups Scottish Land & Estates, NFU Scotland and Community Land Scotland.

As has been explored on this blog previously, there has been an extensive commitment by the Scottish Government to land reform. The conference allowed speakers and delegates the opportunity to reflect on and critique the developments made under recent legislative reform (most notably in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, but also via other legislation like the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015). In addition, delegates heard of continuing implementation of the most recent measures and perspectives on the route the continuing land reform process should take. A comparative panel also brought together analysis of Australian, English, North American and Norwegian perspectives on land reform to provide alternative viewpoints on how different jurisdictions deal with the control, distribution and development of land.

A key objective for the day was to catalyse further collaboration, discussion and research to refine the ongoing development of land reform in Scotland. Historical perspectives, most notably delivered by Professor Ewan Cameron of the University of Edinburgh and the advocate Robert Sutherland, considered why it was that the so-called Scottish land question still resonates today, and allowed delegates the opportunity to reflect on why how far legislative reform has taken Scotland since the Leases Act 1449, a statute that seems a strong contender for the crown of the first land reform statute in Scots law. A blogged version of Sutherland’s presentation is available here.

Fast forwarding to the present day, Fiona Taylor of the Scottish Government set out the government’s position on the implementation of Parts 1-5 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 over, approximately, the next six to twelve months. Moving through the 2016 Act sequentially, Part 1, when enacted, will introduce the Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement (“LRRS”). According to section 1(2) of the 2016 Act, the LRRS will be a statement of principles for land rights and responsibilities in Scotland, which there will be a consultation process for before being laid before Parliament. This important and symbolic statement is viewed by the Scottish Government as something of a “scene-setter” for the future of land reform. The further Parts of the Act build on the principle of future land reform that is at the centre of the LRRS’s purpose. Under Part 2, the Scottish Land Commission is established, as a non-departmental body, with the intention of being operational by April 2017. There was some debate about where this Commission might be based, with one suggestion being that it should be located in what might be classed as a more peripheral location in Scotland, but Taylor noted in discussions after her presentation that it would be accommodated within existing Scottish Government estate for cost mitigation purposes and it has now been confirmed that it will be based in Inverness.

One recent headline-grabbing issue in Scotland, and the UK as a whole, relates to transparency of landownership and other assets. Part 3 of the 2016 Act takes some steps in this regard, providing the Scottish Government with the power to require and record information of persons with controlling interests in entities that own or rent land in a Register. An analogy can be drawn with the relatively recent introduction of the new “Persons with Significant Control” Register in the context of company law. (Another analogy might be drawn with letting agent regulation.) These developments are reflective of increased public concern – especially following the “Panama Papers” scandal – as to who holds power in important social and economic assets. Certain points of detail are still outstanding as regards Part 3, which were noted by Taylor as including:

  • whether this Register is to constitute a new standalone one under the auspices of the Registers of Scotland (as the relevant Minister, Dr Aileen McLeod, suggested in Parliament it might, at cols 63 and 64 of the Stage 2 Official Report) or whether it will become incorporated into the Land Register;
  • the specifics of the information required by those with controlling interests;
  • an appeal process as to the information held; and
  • any exemptions (perhaps relating to privacy, a point analysed in this post by Anna Berlee and Dr. Jill Robbie).

A consultation was launched on 11 September 2016 in relation to the content of the Part 3 Regulations. It closes on 5 December 2016.

Part 4 of the 2016 Act obliges the Scottish Ministers to issue guidelines on engaging communities in the context of decisions taken in relation to land. It is in the early stages of implementation. The ultimate objective of this Part was noted as improving the collaboration of multiple, cross-spectrum stakeholders in maximising the effective use of land in Scotland. Further external workshops for external stakeholders will be arranged for the coming months as part of wider engagement in the drafting of the guidance. The final topic considered by Taylor was Part 5 of the Act, the community right to buy land to further sustainable development. This is unlikely to be brought into force until late 2017 at the earliest. This is due to the government recognising the introduction of other community rights to buy, such as the right to buy abandoned, neglected or environmentally mismanaged land, by the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, will take time to settle in with the communities for whom their use is intended.

Another measure in the 2016 Act is the re-introduction of sporting rates under Part 6, which ends a tax exemption enjoyed by this land use since the mid-1990s. Katy Dickson, of Scottish Land & Estates (SLE), took the opportunity to critique the reintroduction on policy grounds, opining that the policy drivers for reform – tax-raising and fairness – had not been made out. Dickson also noted the practical difficulties in implementing the legislative provisions, particularly in the context of valuation. With the large land area of Scotland afforded to sporting activities, taken together with the provisions of the 2016 Act relating to deer management (in Part 8), the new legislation could have a real impact on Scotland’s environment.

As regards the continuation of the land reform debate, a panel with representatives from Community Land Scotland (CLS), SLE and NFU Scotland (formerly known by the longer moniker The National Farmers’ Union of Scotland)) offered views as to how the ongoing debate should progress. For CLS, it was noted there have been two significant, positive changes to the narrative of the debate during recent years that have changed the debate’s nature. Firstly, following on from the Final Report of the Land Reform Review Group report, the recognition that land is a finite and crucial resource to be used in the public interest for the common good, and a gradual shift from the prior view that land was a private matter where the public interest was of relative unimportance. The other change has been the progressive acknowledgment of wider human rights considerations (such as those found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) beyond the landowner’s right to peaceful enjoyment of property under Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in light of the broad social, economic and indeed environmental importance of efficient and fair land use. In this connection, looking ahead, CLS has unanswered questions on how to actively discourage concentration of landownership into the hands of few, with direct methods such as Compulsory Sale Orders or indirect measures such as tax reform being possible ways of addressing these.

Comparatively, the perspectives shared by SLE offered the view that there is nothing inherently wrong with large landowners if they are responsible. A concern was raised about the potential for the LRRS to be framed so as to focus mostly on the Landowners whilst neglecting the responsibilities of other stakeholders (e.g. access takers). While some might note such a framing of responsibilities would properly reflect the rights a landowner enjoys (and it can also be noted that access takers are already beholden to rules about responsible access, fortified by the Scottish Outdoor Access Code), SLE’s concern about a potential responsibilities imbalance was echoed by NFUS, who highlighted the existing, extensive legislative frameworks that already constrain landowners. Second was the divisive nature of the debate (the term “land reform” itself was noted as being something that immediately divides parties by reference to their respective interests) and method of achieving existing objectives. Looking at one flagship, existing objective, a flaw identified with the one million acres in community ownership objective is that the attainment of this might require some kind of compulsion, which could jeopardise collaboration between different stakeholders (such as the protocol for voluntary transfer agreed by SLE and CLS) and continues the polarising landowner/community narrative. In this regard, NFU Scotland expressed concern that the redistributive aspects of land reform could pose a threat to activities that already contribute to the rural economy. Separately, NFU Scotland welcomed the creation of the Scottish Land Commission, and particularly satisfaction with the creation of the Tenant Farming Commissioner office, viewing this role as one that can improve relations and collaboration between landowners and tenants.

Further panels at the conference focused on the landlord and tenant relationship and the law of succession. Whilst these may not be directly related to planning and environment law (the focus of the original article in SPEL), the tangential impact of reform in these areas (particularly in terms of how they impact on the crofting or agricultural holdings sector) could, in fact, have a real impact on the way land is distributed and/or used in Scotland.

Of interest to planners was a presentation by Bob Reid, which looked at the multifarious factors that have contributed to the housing issues the UK is facing at the moment. These are too multifarious to consider in any detail in this short note, but the rise in reliance on private sector development was highlighted as a crucial factor.

For those interested in the environment, the lecture on 25 August by Calum Macleod, Jayne Glass and Malcolm Combe sought to consider how much of a driver environmental considerations were for land reform, and the impact the various community and tenant rights of acquisition could have on sustainable land use in Scotland, in part building on a recent Environmental Law Review article by one of the authors of this post (open access version here). To oversimplify that, if current landowners are not looking after the environment, someone having a right to acquire from them might play a role in either: encouraging a landowner to look after the environment to try to stave off a land reform event; ultimately improving the environment after a forced sale, as the environment is something that features in the equation for any reallocation of ownership to someone else. Wider policy issues were also considered by Rob McMorran, of Scotland’s Rural College, to provide the context for some important Scottish Government commissioned research into matters like the scale of landownership and the drivers for land use decisions made by private, NGO and community landowners.

These proceedings at Aberdeen provided an opportunity to bring together individuals and organisations that will play a role in the next stage of Scotland’s land reform journey. Whilst land reform will invariably involve a degree of unsettlement of existing positions, it is hoped that the collaborative spirit of this event and this short write-up of it can be channelled into any future developments, with the objective of achieving better solutions for as many stakeholders as possible in relation to the implementation of existing reform and contributing to reform that is yet to occur.

A collection of tweets from the event is available here. Some personal reflections of Malcolm Combe on the event are available here. The authors would like to thank all involved with SPEL and The Knowledge Exchange for agreeing to the publication on this blog of this amended version of the article first hosted by them.

img_2193
Proceedings at the University of Aberdeen on 26 August 2016

Gotta catch ’em all, but what about the law? Access to land and #PokemonGO

This post is by Malcolm Combe

Amidst all that is going on in the world just now, I bet you a Jigglypuff you will have heard someone talking about Pokémon. You might not exactly know what this is, but you can still be affected, as this church in Glasgow discovered. You might have been bemused by the idea of people wandering around, smartphone in hand, chasing imaginary creatures in the augmented reality world of Pokémon GO. Or you might be an avid fan, so much so that you can identify with those who crowded into New York’s Central Park when a Vaporeon popped up.

This advance into augmented reality is a fun development for many and, it appears, a profitable one for Nintendo. That being the case, as the app has been rolled out across the world (launching in its native Japan today, as reported by BBC News) it has not been without issues. That news report highlights the first Japanese accident associated with the game has already occurred, after someone fell down some real stairs whilst distracted by the game. As it rolls across reality, it is clear there are safety issues involved with immersing yourself in augmented reality: in Scotland it might be mountainous terrain, in Bosnia it might be landmines. Its augmented reality has also rolled over the legal reality of various jurisdictions. The reality of realty, that is to say the reality of property law, allows landowners to take steps to retain and regain exclusive possession of their land in many circumstances. What those steps are will depend which jurisdiction a Pidgey nests in.

Scotland

What can a Scottish landowner do? In principle, the owner of land can get an interdict (a court order prohibiting certain conduct, equivalent to an English injunction) to prevent someone encroaching on her land by, for example, building on it. Similar orders could be obtained if someone was to undermine it or periodically intrude on it by swinging the jib of a crane over it. What about someone who turns up uninvited to your land without such profound plans? All they want to do is catch a Pikachu and move on, (hopefully) leaving the land itself undamaged and any real animals on it undisturbed. Can they do that?

Access to land in Scotland has been much discussed and often misunderstood. A commonly expressed sentiment is that there is no law of trespass in Scotland. That is not quite right, but from the other end of the spectrum a landowner putting up a sign saying ‘TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED’ is likely to be sorely disappointed if it comes to an attempt to do so. Such signs might well suggest a desire to instigate criminal action against uninvited guests, but that is normally a matter for a public prosecutor in Scotland, namely the local procurator fiscal, rather than a landowner. Meanwhile, there are some circumstances when being on land can be a criminal offence, particularly if you are part of a disorderly group or if you cause damage to property or wildlife, but a careful Pokémon hunter should be able to avoid such offences. Indeed, a one-time, harmless trespasser might not even be liable for civil damages to a landowner in Scotland, although that should not be taken as an invitation to strut anywhere with impunity. Scotland is also criss-crossed by a number of defined public rights of way, allowing people to travel from one public place to another without fear of landowner challenge.

Private Property
This sign located off the old Deeside Railway promises prosecution for trespass. Good luck with that.

That gives an idea of the underlying Scots law position. That position has actually been liberalised by recent reforms, making the legal terrain even friendlier for access takers. The key legislation that does that is Part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. It gives everyone – yes, everyone, that is exactly what the statute says – rights to cross land or to be on land for certain purposes, including recreational purposes, subject to certain exceptions based on the character of the land or the conduct that is undertaken.

Those access rights are not unchecked: they must be exercised responsibly. Activity is not responsible if it interferes with the rights of other people, which includes other access takers as well as the landowner: if one person is lazily approaching a Snorlax, perhaps you should think carefully before you barge past them. There are also certain things that can never be classed as responsible, such as ‘hunting, shooting or fishing’ or taking motorised access (unless doing that in a vehicle which has been constructed or adapted for use by a person who has a disability). Although the term ‘hunting’ is not defined, it is respectfully submitted that hunting relates to real animals as opposed to augmented reality imaginary creatures.

Some land is excluded from the scope of access rights entirely, regardless of the conduct of a purported access taker. Access rights are simply incompatible with certain features on or of excluded land, such as a building, the ‘curtilage’ immediately surrounding a building, or a reasonably sized garden next to a dwelling. From this, we can glean that the interior of the church mentioned above would not be included in Scotland’s liberal access regime. Other exclusions include longstanding attractions where a fee is payable for entry, like Blair Drummond Safari Park, a sports field when it is in use, or farmland where crops are growing. Anyone seeking entry to such should ideally obtain permission: the ‘gotta catch ’em all’ defence will not wash here. In fact, Farmers Weekly has already carried an article warning Pokémon Go players to keep clear of farms.

Assuming the land itself is not excluded from access rights, can playing an augmented reality video game be classed as recreation? Recreation is not defined, but the Scottish Outdoor Access Code‘s (PDF) explanation of the term (at paragraph 2.7) is that it includes:

  • pastimes (such as watching wildlife, sightseeing, painting, photography and enjoying historic sites);
  • family and social activities (such as short walks, dog walking, picnics, playing, sledging, paddling or flying a kite);
  • active pursuits (such as walking, cycling, horse riding, orienteering, caving, air sports and wild camping); and
  • participation in events (such as walking or cycling festivals, hill running races, and orienteering events.

It does not seem a massive stretch to include Pokémon chasing as analogous to some of these activities, most notably orienteering.

England

All in all, it seems Scotland has a regime that is quite conducive to catching ’em all. What would be the position of an English landowner? It would be fair to say that England is not traditionally viewed as having a liberal access regime. Crucially, in England the very act of being on another person’s land without permission can give the relevant landowner a claim in damages, but England has also witnessed some important statutory reforms that widen access rights away from the traditional (delimited) public footpaths and occasional voluntary agreements.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 applies to mapped open access land, which includes mountains, moor, heath and down, and registered commons (making a much smaller proportion of the country available for access when contrasted with Scotland, in the region of 865,000 acres). That legislation confers the right to enter and remain on land for the purposes of open-air recreation, but that right is restricted by twenty exceptions listed in a schedule to the statute.  The overall effect of this scheme would allow someone to walk on land, accompanied by a dog (but no other animal) and stop for a picnic, but not use a metal detector, camp or bathe in non-tidal water.  What about gaming? There is an exception relating to ‘organised games’. Previous DEFRA guidance suggested ‘organised games’ included ‘those which use a set pitch or defined area of play, organised starts and finishes and associated infrastructure, and which involves the participation of a number of people or a competitive element.  On the other hand, we do not consider that a family group or a small group of friends engaging in an ad-hoc game of rounders or cricket, playing with a frisbee etc are “organised games”.‘ As such, Pokémon hunting might just be alright in the areas mapped as open land, and perhaps also in coastal areas by virtue of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.

Important as those areas are, what about the substantial area of land not covered by such legislation? In those circumstances, players may have to hope their desired Pokémon appears on an existing village green (which might not actually need to be green at all), or will be relying on a sympathetic landowner to allow access.

Conclusion

Each legal system may have different insights to bring to this new legal situation. Of particular interest to the liberally minded are the Norwegian friluftsliv, which translates as the ‘open air life’, and the Swedish allemansrätten and Finnish jokamiehenoikeus, which translate as ‘every man’s right’. For those in favour of a stricter approach, that mindset seems to be evident in many states in the USA. Wherever you are, there will be some considerations for landowners and access takers to work through: putting up a sign berating all things Pokémon is all well and good, but will it be enforceable?

STAY OUT OF MY YARD
Image credit: @davidharvey

Of course, there are other legal issues that might need to be considered. There might be a new issue for the future: should there be a remedy for a landowner against the person who projects augmented reality apparatus onto her land? This would not quite be analogous with a traditional nuisance by a neighbouring landowner or the situation of a photo or political slogan being projected onto a landmark. Alternatively, might there be some kind of negligence if people are lured to an unsuitable location?

Those challenges are for another day. All in all, it might be an idea to embrace the technology and make the best of it. That is what my own university seems to be doing, after all.

Although the allegedly grown-up Malcolm Combe is a lecturer in the School of Law, he remembers fondly the carefree days when he would come home from school to watch a TV double-header of Pokémon then cult Channel 4 quiz show ‘Countdown’. He also went to see ‘Pokémon: the First Movie’ in the cinema with his wee sister. He is delighted to find his latent knowledge of things like Team Rocket and Charmanders are once again relevant, and even more delighted to have combined that with some legal analysis.

UPDATE: A Drowzee and a Caterpie have been sighted in the Law School office. Staff are understandably concerned.