Investigating the relationship between criminal trespass under section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the doctrine of adverse possession: a comparative analysis of England & Wales and Canada

How has the law on AP developed in England & Wales given the political and media coverage on AP and squatting? <br>3. To what extent does section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (‘LASPOA’) harmoniously exist alongside the AP doctrine and, beyond the case of Best, how should their relationship be interpreted? <br>4. What alternative recommendations and/or amendments can be made to section 144 LASPOA?

Are these recommendations feasible? <br><br>While the English courts have clarified that the criminalisation of squatting bears no effect on AP applications under the civil law, inconsistencies remain between the two legal systems. Specifically, despite the superficial clarity in Best concerning the reconciliation between section 144 LASPOA and Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002, section 144 threatens to undermine AP’s productive social value.

As such, this project advocates four alternative recommendations to the criminalisation of squatting in residential buildings, rendering this disharmony obsolete. These recommendations include the adoption of Albertan trespass law elements, the repeal of the squatting offence, and the implementation of amendments to the offence. This project aims to contribute to the area of property law by finding adequate solutions to this English inconsistency with the help of a Canadian perspective.