# Is it legal for me to place glass on the top of rear garden wall to prevent trespass?



## Peter54

At the back of my home there is land that I presume is owned by the council, of late this particular area has become a hang out for unsightly characters and my home has been broken into on more than two occasions.  

Is it legal for me to place glass on the top of my rear garden wall to prevent any further trespassing onto my property?    

I've tried searching for this answer but have gotten nowhere.


----------



## gipimann

The only reference I found was in an insurance company's website, dealing with insurance, health & safety matters for schools.

_(f) The law does not allow you to create any undue hazards or traps in your security measures. If you do incorporate items such as barbed wire, broken glass on walls etc then liability will attach to the Board in the event of any resulting injury_


----------



## onq

You need to ask a solicitor about this specific matter, bit I will offer some general points you can consider yourself and then if required put to him/her.

I think liability may arise for you which could result in a claim on your insurance.

Quite apart from the hidden, unadvertised hazard you have introduced to the boundary of your property where persons have been accustomed to gaining entry without let or hindrance, once this is known about the glass barrier becomes relatively ineffective - a thick piece of carpet defeats it.

I think your money would be better spent on a conspicuous alarm box and a motion-sensitive outside light, backed up by an internal silent alarm linked to either a security company or the local police station.

In short, this is a security matter and yet you have to be reasonable.

Allied to the measures described above, constant vigilance, a neighbourhood watch scheme and calling the police to move on illegal drink and drug taking [should this be what is going on] may well be the best bet.

My best advice is to start softly softly - let these guys see you coming and don't spring any nasty traps on them or they may become vindictive towards you, your property and your car.

Community engagement with the persons concerned and/or their parents to curb any anti-social behaviour may be the best way forward if done in a conciliatory and non-accusatory manner.

Remember, the persons in the field may not be the infiltrators of your property - they may be using them as "cover", so don't go around accusing anyone in the wrong.

ONQ.


----------



## delgirl

Onq's advice is very good.

I remember a case in the UK where a lady who lived alone beside a green area used by children to play football was tired of the ball coming over her wall and the children climbing in to get it.

She had glass cemented onto the top of her wall and when the next child came over and badly cut himself, she was taken to court by the parents and found liable for the child's injuries, pain and suffering, costs, etc.

There's some info here on the pros and cons of putting glass on your wall - it's a UK site, but the laws here are pretty similar.

Here's the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995 from the Irish Statute Book, which may help you make your decision.

You can buy Wall Spikes from Screwfix or Amazon - might be a less dangerous solution than the broken glass. 

Or you can try that sticky black tar-like stuff that doesn't dry. You can get Moly Grease from this Irish website, the top of the wall will be so greasy, they won't be able to climb over it.


----------



## Fiskar

No, Afraid not OP. Find another discrete way. Not advocating this but should the top of the wall be painted in waste car oil not only would it be dangerous but their lovely white track suit clothes or other would be very soiled and traceable. As I say, you don't know who or how the dirty oily substance got there .............


----------



## dewdrop

As a matter of interest i have often noticed the window sills at ground level with spikes inserted thereon. Some of such premises includes property occupied by solicitors.  If you sat on these window sills it would be indeed a painful experience.


----------



## john martin

Get a tub of axle grease and smear it liberally on the top of the wall, it puts them right off getting on to the wall and you have the bonus that they have ruined there clothes.


----------



## onq

dewdrop,

That's possibly a means of advertising the painful financial experience their clients will undergo soon enough  

(ducks)

Seriously though, some of these spikes are in fact to keep birds of a feathered kind off the sills [the high level ones] and string courses while the ground floor ones are usually on the sills to preventing loitering by bottoms unknown and uninvited.

Be careful about the oil.
Again it could lead to a matter of petty vindictiveness on their part.
I would also be very wary of using an organic oil such as sunflower or fish oil.
Its possible that it could attract birds and vermin such as rodents, field voles and mice from the open space.

ONQ.


----------



## Tormented

*Flying dog.*

I once knew a lady who had a problem with people climbing on her wall until she got a new dog.

This was no ordinary dog though ! oh no this was a flying dog, only problem was he used to get a very very upset stomach whilst flying and then used to do his toilet business on the top of the wall, as he could not return to the runway (lawn) in time. 

Strangely enough around this time the people climbing over the wall stopped.


----------



## dewdrop

While a certain degree of levity has entered this thread i feel OP has raised a serious issue especially as so many people will run to a solicitor if they feel they have any chance of getting compensation.


----------



## PaddyBloggit

But the levity makes a valid suggestion .... putting dog poop or otherwise on the wall would deter some who might consider hopping over it.

I can't see how dog poop would cause problems legally .....


----------



## Superman

From a brief glance at the English Occupiers Liability Act, the standard owed to trespassers seems a lot higher there than in Ireland.
The duty owed to trespassers in Ireland is generally not to show reckless disregard for their safety.
What "reckless disregard" means is specified further in Section 4 of the Occupiers Liability Act

Applied to your specific case, I'm not sure there is a clear answer.  You know that there are specific people there who may use this as a way in to your property - if there is any injury, arguably you would have shown a "reckless disregard" to their safety.
If you do put up glass, you can at least minimise the danger by putting up a notice saying "glass on top of wall".


----------



## ajapale

Be careful with grease etc on the top of the wall.  A neighbour did this and the birds carried the grease on their feet to other neighbours clothes line destroying the laundry.

After he paid compensation to his elderly neighbour for her quilt covers and sheets he planted a variety of prickly plants. Once they had established themselves the trespass problems abated.

OP you assume that the open space belongs to the Local Authority, you should determine precisely who the owner is and engage with them. 

I know of cases where the parks department of the LA have installed more secure fencing. I have also come across cases where some or all of the houses are occupied by LA tenants and the LA housing department has installed security features on the top of existing walls.


----------



## Happy Girl

Some years back, we, as a residents association investigated putting up palisade fencing to divide our estate from a lane leading to a disused shed where a lot of anti social behaviour was happening. I myself contacted a number of insurance companies to see what the story would be with regard to liability should anyone have an accident trying to get across it. I was told that we had to ensure that the palisade was "trespasser friendly". When pressed the insurance companies were very vague as to what "trespasser friendly" meant. So we just decided to abandon the idea.


----------



## nuac

Putting glass on top of a wall exposes you to personal injury claims.


----------



## onq

Superman said:


> From a brief glance at the English Occupiers Liability Act, the standard owed to trespassers seems a lot higher there than in Ireland.
> The duty owed to trespassers in Ireland is generally not to show reckless disregard for their safety.
> What "reckless disregard" means is specified further in Section 4 of the Occupiers Liability Act
> 
> Applied to your specific case, I'm not sure there is a clear answer.  You know that there are specific people there who may use this as a way in to your property - if there is any injury, arguably you would have shown a "reckless disregard" to their safety.
> If you do put up glass, you can at least minimise the danger by putting up a notice saying "glass on top of wall".



Being the devil's advocate just for a moment ; -

- how many languages should such a sign be written in?
- should it also be written in braille?
- should it be lit at night?

Because the way the law seems to be going all the above answers might need to be in the affirmative - does anyone know?

ONQ.


----------



## computerman

Anti climb paint is your only man. You can put up a warning sign with it, although it is not necessary to do this in Ireland.

The paint will form a crust which birds will not penitrate, however if someone were to apply body weight to the surface they will be marked.  

Once it is applied it will stay there for years.  

Although there is a very easy way to remove it if you have to. (I wont go into that here).


----------



## Peter54

Thank you everyone, all your advise is very much appreciated.  

Onq, you have made some great points; especially the point about the petty vindictiveness.  This is something I hadn't thought about and no doubt could possibly be a factor if these people were injured climbing the wall.

Dewdrop, yes, claims of compensation are a major problem.  I have spoken to other neighbors who have advised against putting glass on the wall due to false claims.  They also believe it could draw even further attention.

Its so frustrating that you cannot protect your own property without the criminals turning the compensation table on you.


----------



## MANTO

As computerman said - Anti Climbing Paint is a good alternative:

http://www.hotfrog.ie/Companies/NRE-IRELAND/Anti-climb-paint-delivered-nationwide-by-courier-9320


----------



## Sansan

I know the boundary wall to the old stardust night club is about 15 ft high and is coverd with broken glass bottles placed to ensure maximum effect, and can be clearly seen from ardlee road in artane,


----------



## Yorrick

There is an anti climbing paint you can purchase which may be of use. Also get some advice ffom your local garden centre as to the thorniest fastest growing type bushes you can get. Plant then agaainst the wall and hopefully that will be another barrier. Indeed if you  are lucky they may spreead over to the outside of the wall and deter kids from loitering there.l


----------



## onq

Since we're not referring to tall walls [Stardust] and barrier planting I thought I'd better add two things.

1. Walls:

You an build wall up to 2M high to the rear of a property, subject to certain limitations.
Otherwise you'll need permission to raise the wall and this can include walls that "front" onto Open Space/the public Domain.
IMO this includes putting barbed wire fencing on it.  Check with your local authority. 
Higher walls can be a great deterrent but the height must be raised all the way along.
Otherwise the "visitors" will simply get over at the lowest point and traverse the party walls/fences.

2. Planting:

If its Council land ask them about barrier planting.
The Parks Department have a budget to look after open spaces they own.
Equally if the place is accessible to the public and its filling with debris and broken bottles from drinking sessions they may have a duty of care to clean it up.

HTH

ONQ.


----------



## Superman

onq said:


> Being the devil's advocate just for a moment ; -
> 
> - how many languages should such a sign be written in?
> - should it also be written in braille?
> - should it be lit at night?
> 
> Because the way the law seems to be going all the above answers might need to be in the affirmative - does anyone know?
> .


No - the test "reckless disregard" has been tested in court and it is a rather low standard.
If you have particular knowledge of blind trespassers breaking in to your property on a regular basis, then putting up braille signs may be required. Otherwise they are not required.


----------



## roker

Put up an electric fence, if this causes problems then all of the farmers in the country have a problem.


----------



## onq

I think that may be justified by the low population, the rural setting, the necessity of it for keeping the animals penned in and its possibly common usage.

I don't think a judge would look favourably on one of them suddenly appearing on the top of this wall and electrocuting interlopers.

What next, guard turrets?



ONQ.


----------



## roker

Electric fence will not electricute anyone, only give them a jump like the HT on your car.


----------



## onq

Roker,

Since when does "a jump like the HT on your car" *not* equate to electrocution?

ONQ.


----------



## SparkRite

onq said:


> Roker,
> 
> Since when does "a jump like the HT on your car" *not* equate to electrocution?
> 
> ONQ.




Eeeehhh probably since it doesn't kill you................

Big difference between an electric shock and electrocution!!!!


----------



## onq

Aha.

Well, you learn something new every day.

I had become used to the colloquial use or people being "electocuted" but not dead.

I suppose it was a form of emphasis.

Thanks.

ONQ.


----------



## theod

*glass on wall*

Got this from the garda website:

Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1995 
The above act imposes on occupiers of premises 
(including private residences & gardens etc.) certain 
duties of care with regard to visitors on the premises or 
grounds, including trespassers. Essentially’ an occupier 
owes a duty of care to a visitor or trespasser not to injure the person or damage the property of the person 
intentionally and not to act with reckless disregard for 
the person or the property of  that person. This Act can 
be viewed on the Acts of  the Oireachtas website. The erection / installation of ‘severe’ security measures may, in certain circumstances, be affected by this Act e.g. the old practice of embedding 
glass shards on top of walls would not be advisable.


----------



## Pique318

Well there's a law that needs to be changed.

Why on earth should anyone have a 'duty of care' towards trespassers ?

"Oh my, I'm sorry you fell into that bear trap as you were climbing over my wall with your 'Swag' bag. Oh well..."


----------



## onq

Apttly named Pique318, but inappropriately called, if this Act is still current.

I've reproduced an extract below, with *bold *emphasis added for clarity.

Read the other sections [its very short] and in particular the definitions.

Thanks are due to theod who advised on this act's existence originally.

ONQ

===========================


_Number_ 10 _of_ 1995

*OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY ACT, 1995*

From

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/index.html


===========================

*4.*—(1)  In respect of a danger existing on premises, an occupier owes towards a  recreational user of the premises or a trespasser thereon (“the  person”) a duty—(_a_) not to injure the person or damage the property of the person intentionally, and

 (_b_) not to act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person,​except in so far as the occupier extends the duty in accordance with _section 5_ .

*(2)  In determining whether or not an occupier has so acted with reckless  disregard, regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case,  including—*(_a_) whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that a danger existed on the premises;

*(b)  whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that  the person and, in the case of damage, property of the person, was or  was likely to be on the premises;*

 (_c_)  whether the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that  the person or property of the person was in, or was likely to be in, the  vicinity of the place where the danger existed;

 (_d_)  whether the danger was one against which, in all the circumstances, the  occupier might reasonably be expected to provide protection for the  person and property of the person;

 (_e_)  the burden on the occupier of eliminating the danger or of protecting  the person and property of the person from the danger, taking into  account the difficulty, expense or impracticability, having regard to  the character of the premises and the degree of the danger, of so doing;

 (_f_)  the character of the premises including, in relation to premises of  such a character as to be likely to be used for recreational activity,  the desirability of maintaining the tradition of open access to premises  of such a character for such an activity;

 (_g_)  the conduct of the person, and the care which he or she may reasonably  be expected to take for his or her own safety, while on the premises,  having regard to the extent of his or her knowledge thereof;

 (_h_) the nature of any warning given by the occupier or another person of the danger; and

 (_i_)  whether or not the person was on the premises in the company of another  person and, if so, the extent of the supervision and control the latter  person might reasonably be expected to exercise over the other's  activities.​(3) *(a)  Where a person enters onto premises for the purpose of committing an  offence or, while present thereon, commits an offence, the occupier  shall not be liable for a breach of the duty imposed by subsection (1) (b)


 (b) In paragraph (a) “offence” includes an attempted offence. unless a court determines otherwise in the interests of justice.* ​(4) Notwithstanding _subsection (1)_,  where a structure on premises is or has been provided for use primarily  by recreational users, the occupier shall owe a duty towards such users  in respect of such a structure to take reasonable care to maintain the  structure in a safe condition:

 Provided that, where a  stile, gate, footbridge or other similar structure on premises is or has  been provided not for use primarily by recreational users, the  occupier's duty towards a recreational user thereof in respect of such  structure shall not be extended by virtue of this subsection.


----------



## Pique318

Thanks onq.

Pity how it's not looked on the same way if farmland is the property in question.

Compensation cases are the likely outcome if someone "rambles" (trespasses) across a farm and breaks their ankle in a rut/crossing a wall/running from irate bull.

Public liability for farmland is a necessity (and not a cheap one) for every farmer in the country, even those with "No Trespassing" signs on likely access areas.


----------



## Marathon Man

Fiskar said:


> No, Afraid not OP. Find another discrete way. Not advocating this but should the top of the wall be painted in waste car oil not only would it be dangerous but their lovely white track suit clothes or other would be very soiled and traceable. As I say, you don't know who or how the dirty oily substance got there .............


Several years ago, somehow or other , my back wall got covered with an awful dirty slimy 'guck'.  A young lad, that I didn't know, came around with his mother to complain about his clothes being "destroyed".  I explained to her that I did have awful problems with pigeons roosting on the wall....end of story! 
I now have my entire back wall lined with Pyracantha...No more intrusions!


----------



## computerman

Ive said it before, I'll say it again

1. Anti climb paint with a sign.
2. Prikka strip no sign necessary.
Both cheap, both legal, both readily available.

Google both for Dublin and see what comes up.


----------



## sblandscapin

no you cannot do this but you can get oil or paint that wont dry which might help with this problem as it will be slippery and clear to see who has been tresspassing,


----------



## onq

Marathon Man said:


> Several years ago, somehow or other , my back wall got covered with an awful dirty slimy 'guck'.  A young lad, that I didn't know, came around with his mother to complain about his clothes being "destroyed".  I explained to her that I did have awful problems with pigeons roosting on the wall....end of story!
> I now have my entire back wall lined with Pyracantha...No more intrusions!




"Firethorn". 

Just make sure this isn't overhanging a public of private right of way where it could damage someones body of clothes who was merely passing by.

The danger with "fit and forget" barrier planting is that briars can get established and they grow everywhere, including back into your own garden.

They are very sore things to get cut by.

FWIW

ONQ


----------



## Bill Struth

As an 11 year old boy my fingers and hand required 19 stitches because of someone thinking it was a good idea to set glass in concrete on top of a wall. I still don't have feeling in part of my index finger, because the glass sliced through the tendon.  The glass of course is hidden from view, so how this is supposed to be a deterrent I have no idea.

Btw, I was climbing the wall because I was trying to get my football back, the occupant of the house had moved out and the house was empty. My parents took a case on my behalf against the local authority (the house owner) and won.


----------



## onq

Sorry to hear about your injuries Bill, but that's EXACTLY what I'm taking about.

Thanks for posting this to AAM too.

ONQ.


----------

