Rights of way – issues arising for farmers and growers

This case decided that “The use of a public footway includes that of a perambulator as a usual accompaniment of a large class of foot passengers, if of a size and weight not to inconvenience other passengers, and not to injure the soil.”

So, what about a dog? R v Mathias is cited as authority for a dog being a “usual accompaniment”

So, Is a cyclist wheeling (but not riding) a bicycle a trespasser or not? Is a bicycle a “usual accompaniment”?

Are a string of dogs being walked by a dog-walker a “usual accompaniment”?

But: League Against Cruel Sports Ltd v Scott 2 April 1985 (hounds entering a wild deer sanctuary on Exmoor) is authority for it being a trespass for a dog to run off the line of the path.  The Master of Hounds must have known there was a real risk of the uncontrolled hounds entering on to the sanctuary.

Landowners cannot interfere with exercise by the public of a public right of way. The right includes activities reasonably incidental to the exercise of the right such as stopping to rest or admire the view.

If someone is considered to be trespassing, they should be asked leave. If they refuse, a landowner is allowed to use ‘reasonable force’ to remove them. However, what is ‘reasonable force’ depends on the situation. Landowners are not permitted to use weapons to remove a trespasser as this would be considered excessive force and would likely constitute assault and could lead to prosecution.

But DPP v Jones (Margaret) 4 March 1999 a case of non-obstructive demonstration near Stonehenge decided that the public’s right to use a highway included a right of peaceful assembly provided the assembly did not obstruct the highway either by unreasonably impeding the public’s right of passage or because the assembly amounted to a public or private nuisance. Clearly that is unlikely to apply in a private land setting as the “public highway” would not normally be large enough to accommodate a demonstration within its confines.

Obstruction of a right of way is a criminal offence so the Police should intervene.

Trespassing is usually a civil wrong with police having no authority to arrest a mere trespasser, but they can and may help you remove them e.g. in connection with potential criminal offences.

For example:

Trespassing on land with vehicles;

• causing damage when entering or occupying property
• stealing from property
• Fly-tipping

Part V of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA 1994) gives powers to the police and to local authorities to remove trespassers in certain designated circumstances, including:

• Powers for the police to arrest persons and seize and retain vehicles and other property (sections 60C to 60E).
• Powers for the police to remove trespassers intent on residing on land with 6 or more vehicles having been asked to leave (section 61).
• Powers for the police to seize vehicles on land (section 62).
• Powers for the police to deal with raves (sections 63 to 66).
• Offence of aggravated trespass i.e. intimidation obstruction or disruption of lawful activities, (section 68).
• Powers for the police to remove persons committing or participating in aggravated trespass (section 69).
• Powers for the local authority to remove unauthorised campers and their vehicles (sections 77 to 79)

If the trespasser is accused of aggravated trespassing, then the maximum punishment is three months’ imprisonment, but first-time offenders are likely to receive a fine. If the trespasser is accused of trespassing with the intent to commit theft, then the punishment can be up to several years’ imprisonment.

An occupier of premises owes a duty of care to a trespasser in respect of any risk of the trespasser being injured on the premises because of the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them (section 1, Occupiers Liability Act 1984) (1984 Act).

An occupier owes a higher duty of care to a lawful visitor and must take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for which the visitor is invited or permitted to be there (section 2(2), Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957) (1957 Act).

Trespassers include people who stray from the right of way onto adjoining land.  The level of liability a farmer owes a person on his land depends on whether their presence is lawful or they are trespassing.

When holding livestock in fields adjacent to public rights of way, farmers must be alert to the dangers cattle and other animals can pose to members of the public, and the risks that may arise from even apparently docile animals. Sadly, in recent years there have been several tragic deaths and injuries especially from cattle. The occupier owes a duty to trespassers if he:

• Is aware of the danger;
• Knows or has reasonable grounds to believe a person may get in the vicinity of the danger; and
• Should reasonably be expected to offer the person some protection.

In terms of what livestock are allowed, farmers are banned from keeping specified breeds of dairy bull in fields crossed by a public right of way.  These include Holstein, Friesian, Ayrshire, Dairy Shorthorn, Jersey, Guernsey and Kerry. It must also be noted that beef bulls over ten months old can only be kept in fields crossed by public rights of way if they are kept with cows and heifers.

A full assessment of those risks must be made, and, recorded, and appropriate action taken to minimise that risk.  This may mean a variety of measures, from locating cattle in different fields, permanent or temporary fencing, the provision of signs or the relocation of feed areas away from public access.

If a person wanders from the legal route a farmer may then owe the duty of care which applies to that person because they have become a trespasser rather than a lawful visitor. It is important to clearly signpost rights of way to encourage walkers to stick to the route, especially when spraying and harvesting.

There is no automatic right to walk across agricultural or other private land, other than on a public right of way even if someone thinks doing so wouldn’t cause any damage.  The right to roam over certain areas of land under the Countryside and Rights of  Way Act 2000, includes:

• Any land shown on a map as ‘open country’;
• Registered common land (parts of the New Forest);
• Land which is higher than 600m above sea level; and
• Dedicated land.

The cut-off date for registering rights of way which may have been used for years and not registered has been extended to 1 January 2031.  Anyone can apply for a Definitive Map Modification Order so if land is being use which you don’t want to be turned into a public right of way, then you need to consider what options are available to prevent use of it.  There is no legal requirement for the owner and occupier of the land to be consulted so consider if any of your land holdings could be affected.

Whilst the right to roam lets someone go onto open access land for the purpose of open-air recreation (such as walking). It doesn’t give them the right to do what they want on that land, or cause any damage to hedgerows, fences or walls. In England and  Wales, it doesn’t give someone the right to ‘wild camp’.

If someone breaches any conditions (including allowing a dog to run free around livestock), then they can be treated as a trespasser.  This will mean the landowner has the right to stop them from going onto their land (even if it’s elsewhere) for 72 hours after they have been asked to leave.

It’s difficult to stop people from accessing your land if there are footpaths and public access points going across it.  You can restrict access for up to 28 days a year, which is often the case during lambing season or at other critical times during the year, so that livestock are not at risk of being disturbed.

You can’t put up ‘No Trespassing’ signs on access land, or any sign that’s designed to deter the public from walking through access land.  You also cannot use threatening behaviour or deliberately put the public at risk, for example by putting up barbed wire at public access points.

A farmer or landowner cannot use fencing to prevent a person using a public right of way or they face being taken to court for causing an obstruction.  They are, however, able to fence land to prevent unauthorised access.  Temporary fencing may be used to separate land from a right of way so long as the path remains open for the public to use.

Where unauthorised access takes place, you should take action to prevent it otherwise it can lead to public rights being acquired.

A farmer can make a request to the highway authority to divert a path, but there is no obligation to process applications to change the route of the path so it can take time.

The new route must be enjoyable and convenient for the public, so farmers are advised to think about the surface of the path and how easy it is to walk on, the number of gates, and how pleasant the new route would be to walk compared to the existing one.

Sadly, incidents of dog worrying and attacks on livestock have been increasing and from 18 March 2026 the law changes,  The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025.

These changes strengthen the tools available to police and the courts including an unlimited  fine for worrying and the ability to enter premises and seize dogs so they can respond more effectively when incidents happen.  The law now also includes attacks on Llamas and Alpacas.

Where livestock worrying or an attack happens, farmers should report it to the police and keep any evidence. Record dates, times and if possible, take photos or video and witness details. Check whether signs, fencing and footpath management needs to be updated.

Landowners are able to apply for the exclusion of dogs from fields where sheep are kept at lambing time, as long as the enclosure is smaller than 15 ha (37 acres).

If a walker doesn’t comply with the restrictions on access and rules concerning dogs, then they have no entitlement to be on that land and are effectively a trespasser.  The landowner can therefore ask that person to leave the land.

Where land is mapped as open access land under the Countryside and Rights of  Way Act 2000 a dog only needs to be kept on a short lead of fixed length of no more than two metres:

From March 1 to July 31;

At any time of year where a dog is in the vicinity of livestock.

However, if the Countryside and Rights of  Way Act 2000 land is crossed by a public footpath, the rules change. Here, where a walker uses a public right of way to cross open access land, only the right of way rules apply.  This means if the dog owner follows the line of the public footpath on the land, there is no statutory requirement for them to have their dog on a lead.

There is a provision in the Animals Act 1971 that affords a farmer a defence to a civil for shooting a dog which attacks or chases his livestock:

Protection of livestock against dogs

(1) In any civil proceedings against a person (in this section referred to as the defendant) for killing or causing injury to a dog it shall be a defence to prove –

     (a) that the defendant acted for the protection of any livestock and was a person entitled to act for the protection of that livestock; and

     (b) that within forty-eight hours of the killing or injury notice thereof was given by the defendant to the officer in charge of a police station.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person is entitled to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if –

     (a) the livestock or the land on which it       belongs to him or to any person under whose express or implied authority he is acting; and

     (b) the circumstances are not such that liability for killing or causing injury to the livestock would be excluded by section 5(4) of this Act.

(3) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, either—

     (a) the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

     (b) the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

(4) For the purposes of this section the condition stated in either of the paragraphs of the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable ground for that belief.

(5) For the purposes of this section –

     (a) an animal belongs to any person if he owns it or has it in his possession; and

     (b) land belongs to any person if he is the occupier thereof.

Where a field is home to sheep or other livestock, a dog must be on a lead or under close control.

On 1 August 2022, amendments under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 strengthened the powers and penalties available to tackle the practice of hare coursing, including:

• Increasing the maximum penalty for trespassing in pursuit of game under the Game Acts (the Game Act 1831 and the Night Poaching Act 1828) to an unlimited fine and introducing the possibility of up to six months’ imprisonment.
• Introducing two new criminal offences: firstly, trespass with the intention of using a dog to search for or pursue a hare; and secondly, being equipped to trespass with the intention of using a dog to search for or pursue a hare, both punishable on conviction by an unlimited fine and up to six months’ imprisonment.
• New powers for the courts to order, on conviction, the disqualification of an offender from owning or keeping a dog.