AJ gets pie in the face

[mannej]

Anyone comment on trespassing at the grand ballroom, how does that work?

Damage to a microphone .... gees what about damage to a white shirt as well...

It would be private property would it not?

 

[Pushka]

Pretty sure you can't just walk into a paid-for function. Although he seems to have. Given later world wide events, security breaches like this must be stopped.

 

[theblank]

Pretty sure you can't just walk into a paid-for function. Although he seems to have.

Interesting point.

I imagine the definititions of trespass is having to break in, or a sign denying entry. Merely wandering into a room full of people might not be considerered trespassing, unless he knew beforehand he was not permitted entry. Given such functions usually have security or attendants to prevent freeloaders, I think it will be hard to prove he trespassed. his defence may well be that he was pemitted entry by implication.

And seriously, how could someone not notice a person carrying a pie? Its not as if he could have concealed it.

 

[mannej]

Interesting point.

I imagine the definititions of trespass is having to break in, or a sign denying entry. Merely wandering into a room full of people might not be considerered trespassing, unless he knew beforehand he was not permitted entry. Given such functions usually have security or attendants to prevent freeloaders, I think it will be hard to prove he trespassed. his defence may well be that he was pemitted entry by implication.

And seriously, how could someone not notice a person carrying a pie? Its not as if he could have concealed it.

Here is the Legal definition from WA

http://perth.australiancriminallawyers.com.au/offences/trespass

 

[Pushka]

You don't have to 'break' anything to be charged with break and enter. The break is associated with the concept of 'break security' - eg just by opening a closed door - rather than actual breaking of an object. (Former cop here )

 

[clazman]

Here is the Legal definition from WA

Trespass – Australian Criminal Lawyers Perth

No legal eagle, but surely consent is granted because of the business they are in, so the only way the police can successfully prosecute is if he was asked to leave and didn't

 

[Pushka]

No legal eagle, but surely consent is granted because of the business they are in, so the only way the police can successfully prosecute is if he was asked to leave and didn't

If entry requires a ticket then no consent to enter was given. In this case some sloppy gate work obviously.

 

[clazman]

If entry requires a ticket then no consent to enter was given. In this case some sloppy gate work obviously.

In that instance could he argue, that it was a free event?

 

[Pushka]

In that instance could he argue, that it was a free event?

Pretty sure a lawyer could argue whatever they wanted and up to the judge to decide.

 

[clazman]

Pretty sure a lawyer could argue whatever they wanted and up to the judge to decide.

Forgot about the lawyer and the different world they live in

 

[Pushka]

Forgot about the lawyer and the different world they live in

That would be the courtroom where this case will be decided.

It isn't up to us to decide that but the court. So we should forget about what we think and let the lawyers and judge decide.

 

[Boca68]

Perhaps the trespass can be defined by it being a licensed venue?

An event with paid admission and serving alcohol in (psuedo) private environment. Not sure of the exact licensing laws here, but in Victoria they can just about hang you for anything under the licensed venue/liquor control acts.

Not totally sure about this, just throwing it out there.

 

[drron]

Read the defences available in WA-
[h=3]Possible Defences under WA Law – Trespass[/h](a) There was consent;
(b) A person in authority had not asked the person to leave the premises;
(c) There was a lawful excuse to be there;
(d) Accident;
(e) Emergency;
(f) Insanity;
(g) Honest claim of right;
(h) Mistake of fact (but mistake of law is not a defence); and
(i) Identification (ie. the person accused is not the person who trespassed).

Seems he would argue clause b and f.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Read the defences available in WA-
[h=3]Possible Defences under WA Law – Trespass[/h](a) There was consent;
(b) A person in authority had not asked the person to leave the premises;
(c) There was a lawful excuse to be there;
(d) Accident;
(e) Emergency;
(f) Insanity;
(g) Honest claim of right;
(h) Mistake of fact (but mistake of law is not a defence); and
(i) Identification (ie. the person accused is not the person who trespassed).

Seems he would argue clause b and f.

I doubt (b) would be available in the circumstances.
It would be available when the person initially had a lawful excuse to be on the premises, or there was a general invitation to the public to enter the premises or in similar circumstances.
So in combination with (a) and (c) or similar facts.
Sneaking into a commercial venue prior to a private function and hiding until it is underway can be clearly distinguished from such circumstances.
It is similar to entering a private house uninvited because the door happened to be unlocked. That is a trespass even if no one has asked you to leave.
Further, the fact that he hid betrays his knowledge that he was there without permission, if not actual guilt of trespassing.
It also logically excludes (d), (g) and (h), incidentally. So he's only left with (f).
He might be crazy but I doubt he is crazy enough to be incapable of criminal responsibility.