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

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Put up an electric fence, if this causes problems then all of the farmers in the country have a problem.
 
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.
 
Electric fence will not electricute anyone, only give them a jump like the HT on your car.
 
Roker,

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

ONQ.
 
onq said:
Roker,

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

ONQ.
Click to expand...


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

Big difference between an electric shock and electrocution!!!!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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..."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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,
 


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

Thanks for posting this to AAM too.

ONQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register