Land law and criminal law
According to the 1925 legislation act, when land is unregistered, an unlawful tenant can possess the land through adverse possession over a specified time. As per the Act, a squatter can possess a land through a combination of both positive and negative effects of adverse possession by acquiring titles and also the limitation of the 1980 act, which completely extinguishes paper title or documentary. Bodden W. James, in his articles “The Red Light Princes,” stated that “These squatters aren’t just aliens, drifters, and undesirables. They’re new world barbarians, conquering free spaces and making them their own.” Thus, this statement requires a debate on the impacts on adverse possession doctrine and whether it can perceive as possession doctrine that can be applicable in land law.
In addition, Sonia Katyal and Eduardo Penalver, in their article they wrote, “in many nations, the law permits even the knowing trespasser to take advantages of this doctrine. Although not a criminal law doctrine, adverse possession ultimately converts someone who would otherwise qualify as criminal trespasser into an owner.” this statement implies that adverse possession doctrine in land law favors unlawful tenant and goes against legal owner of the land. This doctrine can, therefore, be considered or perceived as an effective doctrine tat encourages land theft of which caused pressure to change or alter the doctrine. Therefore, this paper will critically evaluate the main purpose of the 1925 legislation in relation to unregistered titles.
Rationale
Hopkins N. defined adverse possession as the acquiring of a freehold estate or land by possessing a piece of land through continued use so as to extinguish or defeat existing titles. Adverse possession doctrine is controversial since it allows unlawful tenants to legally steal land from the legal owner or lawful tenant. The rationale behind adverse possession is an equitable maxim of the “vigilantibus non-dormientibus, Jura subveniunt.” Such a maxim encourages an owner of the land to utilize it to best of the capabilities and abilities since land is an essential natural resource. Therefore, is a landowner neglects or fails to abide by such responsibilities, then a squatter can utilize the land with the aim of taking the land from the initial owner using legal terms.
April Stroud, in his article “Making Sense of Land Law,” affirmed that the ownership of a piece of land is not considered absolute, but it is also based upon the legal rights of a person or an individual to possess the land. April’s statement, therefore, reflects the popularly known phrase, “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” There are various rules concerned with adverse possession, and they depend on whether the land is unregistered or registered.
Requirements for a claim
For a squatter to successfully claim for adverse possession in unregistered land, the establishment of factual facts should be made to show that the squatter had a direct intention of possessing the land. This was clearly established in Moran vs. Buckinghamshire CC case and was also affirmed during the Graham v Pye case. Therefore, a squatter can possess a land either through dispossessing the initial owner or by using the land for a certain period after the owner discontinued his or her possession. Slade J, the case of McFarlane v Powel asserted that the alleged owner is entitled to deal with the question of the land the same way an occupying owner has to deal with it so as to provide factual possession. For instance, the property in question is a house, the adverse possessor may stay in the house, and if it is a garden, the squatter can cultivate it. In the case of Catchpole and Red House Farms (Thornden) Ltd, shooting wildfowl was considered to be the sufficient act of the adverse possession since that was the only purpose of the land.
Apart from possessing or using the land, the unlawful owner has also to show a direct intention that he is willing and ready to possess. According to Slade J, the squatter should also show the intention to prevent others from possessing the land, even including the real owner who has the documents or paper title. In the case of Waterloo Real Estate Inc v Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd, the affirmed that adverse possessor should show a subjective intention of possessing the land in addition to his outward conduct to indicate that was his primary intention. This clearly reflected in the case of Moran v Buckinghamshire CC; the adverse possessor cultivated a piece of land the was to close to his garden.
Arguments for and against
Many people have asserted the adverse possession doctrine is unfair to all registered owners. Therefore, this unfairness makes it possible for squatters to have adverse possession. Despite this registered owner should get more protection since they acquired the land through legal means and should take advantage of his or her registration. However, squatters can as well registered titles despite the advantages given to the lawfully registered owner. A squatter is entitled to register for a title as a result of equity of the estoppel in case the lawful owner wants to dispose of the applicant.
Criminal law
Unlike various aspects associated with criminal law, defense in relation to excuses and justification has not yet been subjected to a conceptual analysis for more understanding. The general scope and nature of almost of defenses are perpetuated over the centuries with no or little question. Currently, more is focused on whether a specific defense can be applicable to a certain circumstance, but the larger perspective is rarely considered. Generally, the inquiry about defense, which we can consider to have been undertaken, is how the collection of the recognized defenses functions or operates as a whole system. Robinson H. Paul “Criminal Defenses: A Systematic Analysis” written in 1982 stated that excuses and justification really matter in criminal law. To answer this question, I will explain whether justification and excuses matter or not in relation to defenses in criminal using academic commentaries and case laws.
What are excuses and justifications
Various claims of justification acknowledge that the meaning of an offense is satisfied; however, there is always a challenge to justified whether the act is wrongful. On the other hand, claims of excuses acknowledge that such an act can be wrongful, but always excuses seek to dismiss the attribution of such actions to the actor. Justification in criminal law speaks to provide proof why an act is right, and an excuse in criminal law speaks to prove whether an actor as well is accountable for the concededly wrongful or unlawful act.
Therefore, we can assert that justification in criminal law is all about giving reasons for what happened or what was done or not. Hence justification considers context and also concludes that what occurred or happed was fairly served. In court systems, justifications concentrate more on actions or the act rather than the accused. In implicates that the act was beneficial in one way or the other. It also implies that such an act is just and sensible, and a good or reasonable person could have done that. Therefore, the justification seems to matter in criminal law as it offers to acquit circumstances that imply that what happed or done in a specific situation was right.
In criminal law, excuse as a form of defense concentrates more on the accused rather than the act. It acknowledges that the act might have caused harm in one way or the other, but also seeks to explain that the accused is not to be blamed. Excuses in criminal law also imply that the accused had limited choice and that the right or the correct alternative wasn’t available at that time. Therefore, we justifications as well that excuses really do matter in criminal law.
How justification and defense matter in criminal law
We can state that excuses and justification are different forms of defense in many criminal cases. Both excuse and justification the accused admits that he or she had done something or an act which is prohibited by the law. The prohibited act is considered to have justification when the act had more positive impacts than the negative impacts, or the act is not blameworthy or wrong. The prohibited act is also accused if the accused actions or act was not voluntary, that is the accused acted out of false belief or duress. Ohio V. Martin, in his book published in 1986, affirmed that nations might make just as an affirmative defense hence the burden of proof falls directly on the defendant. Patterson V. 1977 affirmed that nations could make excuses, like including affirmative defense, mental states, rather than considering elements of mens rea so as prosecutions to be done beyond any doubts.
For instance, when the accused breaks in somebody else home during a fire to save the person inside, such an act is justified. However, if the same action occurs in the belief that the house is under fire, and real sense there is no fire, then such an act is excused by the law since it can be considered to be a reasonable act. For instance, in the case of Jardine and finch in 1982, the police short Waldorf Stephen as they believed he is a dangerous and harmed man. The defendants were therefore charged with attempted murder as well as wounding Walldorf with the intention of causing grievous body harm. The defense was that the defendants acted to protect others as well as their self-defense.
Therefore, criminal law uses excuses and justification to clarify the intention of an action, whether it is wrong or was done for the right choice. Hence, excuses and justifications end up influencing criminal law in various aspects. Through justifications and excuses, criminal law looks at the magnitude of actions of the defendant as well as it focuses on the actor as to why he commuted such a prohibited