Does anyone know if any riders have ever been prosecuted for riding on National Trust land/monuments?

Had a brief (and refreshing friendly) exchange with a guy whilst out on the bike this morning, he claimed to be a magistrate and had prosecuted 6 people for riding on where they shouldn’t be last year. I’m not sure if he was referring specifically to National Trust land but seemed to be suggesting it.

I assumed this was BS but intrigued…

I thought NT were trying to promote cycling on their land at certain sites ?
I suspect it might be more the family bimble aspect rather than Strava smashing roosting and so on.

I work for NT, sounds like BS. I cant imagine “us” taking out a private prosecution (which is what it would be) on anything like this. Certainly our countryside team have never mentioned it, and I assume they would know.

If he’s done six there must’ve been thousands of prosecutions which i’m sure I’d have heard of.

Smells distinctly BS’y to me.

You should have asked him to elaborate.

I suspect he confused motorbikes and mountain bikes. Unless you were on an ebike….

I suppose its possible if the riding was somewhere fragile, valuable or completely in appropriate where damage was done to a national treasure or it was somewhere where cycling was specifically outlawed.
Doesn’t seem likely though. We may be wrong of course. Doubt we’ll ever know.

I would heartily claim bullshit, but I doubt there are any official statistics easy to hand to prove it.

We are in the area of byelaw prosecutions here… very, very seldom seen and with patchy jurisprudence. I would be willing to bet that There have been no more than a handful of them in any form since the NT byelaws were written in 1965, let alone just for cycling. I did some reasearch on MOD and FC byelaws a while back and prosecutions are rare as hens teeth and notoriously fraught with gaps and complications (several MOD prosecutions fell apart on things like commons law and human rights law assuring a right to protest)

For the avoidance of doubt – NT byelaw states it is an offence against the byelaws to. “(iii) Ride or drive any conveyance over or upon Trust Property otherwise than upon roads, tracks and waterways authorised for the use of such conveyance.” However as a matter of policy it is tolerated in many places.

I work for NT, sounds like BS. I cant imagine “us” taking out a private prosecution (which is what it would be) on anything like this. Certainly our countryside team have never mentioned it, and I assume they would know.

Thanks for that, very interesting. I did wonder if it was his own variation of the ‘you shouldn’t be riding your bike up here’ line.

He did say it was illegal whereas I thought it was trespass against the landowner and not a prosecutable offence… depending on bylaws etc.

As said, I wasn’t riding at the time and the guy was friendly enough about it.

British Camp?

I suspect he confused motorbikes and mountain bikes.

That did cross my mind…

Will regard a BS for now and keep an eye out for him, see if I can get some more info out of him next time – though I suspect he’s probably a Bank Holiday Touron rather than a local.

British Camp?

On a Bank Holiday Steve? You’ve got to be kidding 😉

I suggest that you have learned a valuable lesson here:

option one: Smile and wave boys, smile and wave, don’t get trapped into a discussion, just ride merrily into the sunset

Option two: if they say “you’re not allowed to ride here” or similar, and option one is out, then the correct answer is “Yes, I know, silly isn’t it?” Quickly followed up by riding off merrily into the sunset

Option three: upon encountering the plainly ridiculous (I’m a magistrate) then the correct response is “That’s nice for you” before, as you can possibly guess by now, riding merrily into the sunset

Job jobbed

Though Option one is my go to on this occasion Option three was pretty much how it went – in fairness the guy didn’t stop to lecturer me just walked by where I was stood and continued on his merry way.

I have a very cheeky NT trail along a local river I’ve been using for 20 years, ok it’s a footpath but I’m not the only one to ride it and there are families with kids riding bikes along it too.
Late last year the NT we’re doing some work on it, first time in about 10 years and I got “caught” riding it. The NT guy was kitted out in his workwear and the van was parked in the Pub car park right at the exit of the trail. So, the bloke shouted at me, ran like the clapped to catch me up then crabbed my jersey to stop me. He flung me to the ground and started shouting his mouth off about trespassing and such. I got my phone camera out, took a picture of him then asked where his supervisor was.. we walked about 100mtrs to the van whereby he supervisor was, I took a photo of the bloke in the van and the registration plate. We then “chatted” about the access whereby shouty bloke insisted he was going to prosecute me, it told him simply to shut up and stop shouting and I got on my bike and was just about to ride off when he bloked my way.
Another photo later and I’d had enough.
I reported both to the NT and detailed the angst and offered up my name and address as proof, and my argument for riding along the trail.
I got a very nice letter explaining that they were working in that area for the next 3 months and a different team would be there on various occasions, no apology for the angsty shouty bloke. A week later and I’m back there and a different team were there, then the same team over the next couple of months.

All they are allowed to do is ask that you get off your bike and walk.

Idiots everywhere. What surprises me is that people are amazed they exist.

I’d have put him firmly on his arse with a generous shove.

All they are allowed to do is ask that you get off your bike and walk.

This. What preceded it sounds like assault! on the property where I work “We” ask people to walk, point out it’s not for riding etc. (and then I often suggest they choose a better/quieter time).

Balls, I wasn’t going to do this, but let’s have some fun…

Here’s your very own cut out and keep “chew on that motherf***er” patented public lands anti-byelaw card:

Cycle Protest

I am cycling here as a deliberate act of personal and public protest against the current access situation for mountain bikers in the UK, and I intend to take part in an organised political protest, akin to the Kinder Scout trespasses of 1932, against the unjustified continuing inequity of rights of access between walkers and cyclists,
Cycling constitutes not only the matter and form of my protest, but also the essence, nature and quality of my protest. Cycling both constitutes and is inseparable from the message of my protest.?The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in law, and any attempt to restrict my right to protest either personally or as part of a group will amount to an unjustifiable interference with my article 10 and 11 Human Rights
My protest is designed to be as unintrusive as possible, and it is not my intention to interfere in any way any with lawful activities. If at any time I become aware of disturbance to any lawful activities or conflict with protected wildlife or a nature conservation site in my vicinity I will move on immediately to avoid continuing that disturbance. I maintain that my presence and protest here causes no more disturbance or interruption than the unrestricted right of access that I am permitted to exercise on foot.

Reference caselaw:
DPP v Jones [1995]
Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 23
Kuznetsov [2008] ECHR

NT land is normally protected by Bye-law – usually displayed on the back of the signage at the site. None of my local NT land has anything anti-cycling in the byelaws, but I do try and stay off the main bits so as to not cause a major international incident or ‘owt like that 😉

I’m pretty sure Magistrates don’t prosecute – don’t they ‘hear’ cases, which the CPS prosecute (I’m in Scotland so there are differences, as well as better access law). In which case there’s little doubt he’s talking out of his hat.

ninfan – Member
Balls, I wasn’t going to do this, but let’s have some fun…

Here’s your very own cut out and keep “chew on that motherf***er” patented public lands anti-byelaw card:

Cycle Protest

I am cycling here as a deliberate act of personal and public protest against the current access situation for mountain bikers in the UK, and I intend to take part in an organised political protest, akin to the Kinder Scout trespasses of 1932, against the unjustified continuing inequity of rights of access between walkers and cyclists,
Cycling constitutes not only the matter and form of my protest, but also the essence, nature and quality of my protest. Cycling both constitutes and is inseparable from the message of my protest.?The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in law, and any attempt to restrict my right to protest either personally or as part of a group will amount to an unjustifiable interference with my article 10 and 11 Human Rights
My protest is designed to be as unintrusive as possible, and it is not my intention to interfere in any way any with lawful activities. If at any time I become aware of disturbance to any lawful activities or conflict with protected wildlife or a nature conservation site in my vicinity I will move on immediately to avoid continuing that disturbance. I maintain that my presence and protest here causes no more disturbance or interruption than the unrestricted right of access that I am permitted to exercise on foot.

Reference caselaw:
DPP v Jones [1995]
Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 23
Kuznetsov [2008] ECHR

The next “I pay road tax” jersey there Ninfan?

Not bullshit.

And I’m a memeber of the NT too.

But then, you’ve got nothing to say other than post a pic of a bloke off the interwebz.. well done you.

^
Wasn’t the bullsh1t comment aimed at sq22…‘s post?
ninfan – thanks for the interesting card text.

British Camp?

That’s Malvern Hill Conservators land. Whole different approach to NT.

The local NT spot is Midsummer Hill, which does butt up to Eastnor estate and Conservators land

Not bullshit.

And I’m a memeber of the NT too.

Surprising then. I reckon most people having been assaulted by an employee would do more than send a miffed letter. Not sure if I think you’re çommendably calm, or really stupid.

Whilst none of my riding is on NT land – regardless of who’s “employee” grabbed me, they would have a lovely pair of new neck decorations to wrap their scarf around……..

Ninfan, we had a bit of a barney on here a couple of months back, but now I like you again!

Just imagine the GoPro footage of an officious land agent being handed that text and reading it! I’m getting mine laminated.

are you sure he was /is a magistrate,lots of strange people pop out at christmas some with made up jobs and a chip on their shoulder.

are you sure he was /is a magistrate,lots of strange people pop out at christmas some with made up jobs and a chip on their shoulder.

Agreed. I’d forgotten about having to tolerate the ‘got a new pair of jogging trainers and a New Year resolution’ brigade for the first three weeks of January. Same every year. Brand spanking new jogging gear, bunch of yummy mummies following the young ‘instructor’ bloke they all want to shag. Getting all hoity toity about me riding my bike where it might not be strictly kosher.

Still, they’ll have all **** off by February, so not too much to put up with……

project +1

Police interviewed an LBS owner about trail building on NT land in Surrey after what I assumed was a complaint. Not so much riding as claim that trees where cut down which is criminal damage. No prosecution. I started a thread about it a couple of years afo

jamesfts – Member 
Had a brief (and refreshing friendly) exchange with a guy whilst out on the bike this morning, he claimed to be a magistrate and had prosecuted 6 people for riding on where they shouldn’t be last year

Always been of the impression that there are zero cases where someone had been prosecuted for simply cycling on someone’s land in the UK.

Would it be magistrate anyway as the only prosecution that can occur here is trespass which is a civil case?

Criminal damage as said is another matter.

Riding on NT land, if it’s general access / common land (like NT land around Leith, bits of North Downs), then usually there’s no issue with riding. Riding around some NT stately home gardens or through the house might piss them off though 😀

jambalaya – Member 
Police interviewed an LBS owner about trail building on NT land in Surrey after what I assumed was a complaint. Not so much riding as claim that trees where cut down which is criminal damage. No prosecution. I started a thread about it a couple of years afo

Was that the race that was organised on NT land, sanctioned by NT ranger and then it all went ballistic with threats about criminal damage (over a trail that pre existed including “features” and said ranger supposedly had been shown it in advance)? Police were called over that one. Not sure if that was also where the press got some quote from someone accusing MTBers in Surrey of being “drunken swearing hooligans” 😀

Has anyone ever being prosecuted NT land or otherwise for just riding? My understanding is unless your riding is proven to have caused significant damage to high value, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute, or a least a waste of everyones time. Unauthorised trailbuilding might qualify but it would have to be proven you did it.

land agent being handed that text and reading it!

In the first instance I’d likely say that if you were on privately owned open access land the ECHR has no applicability and secondly, if it was NT land then I’m not sure the NT is a ‘public body’ within the HRA so you may well find your laminated card put somewhere the sun doesn’t shine.

Ninfan: that looks like it’d fit nicely on a business card.. portrait orientation so it’s easier to read.

I’ll take a hundred! Hand them out to anyone that stops me!

NIpper

patented public lands anti-byelaw card

Regards NT being a public body or not, Aston Cantlow* provided, the functional rather than pure definition is wide as the question is the nature of the function being performed. Since the function here is one of prosecution agency, involving prosecution in the criminal courts not civil, it would be hard to argue that HRA would not apply.

*Lord Hope at Para 41

I think the distinction would be be that the NT in that instance would be pursuing a private prosecution, the CPS could prosecute you if the could be bothered as you are actually breaking a bylaw not just a civil offence?

Surely if on a prow then the owner of the land and their function is irrelevant? By a prow being, by definition, a public place?

I bet if you looked at the national trusts charitable objects they’ll be doing loads of stuff for the benefit of the public, and fall into being a public body?

Just my simple engineer brain looking at stuff logically, not legally!