Camping, Trespassing and the Right to Roam: What the Oban Case Tells Us About Scottish Law

The recent case on Alma Crescent in Oban raises important questions about trespassing, wild camping and the legal rights of people using land in Scotland.

An article published by The Oban Times on 9 October 2026 reported that a group of at least four men had been seen camping opposite flats on Alma Crescent for several months. Residents had raised concerns with the police on multiple occasions, including claims that the men had been begging for money.

According to the newspaper, Police Scotland confirmed that two men were charged on 6 September 2026 with an offence under Section 3 of the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 and reported to the Procurator Fiscal.

But what does that actually mean? Does camping on private land automatically make someone a criminal? Can the police arrest someone simply because residents complain? And what happens when a person's right to access the outdoors conflicts with the interests of a landowner or local community?

To understand the situation, it is important to separate public concern, civil trespass and criminal offences.

1. Is trespassing a crime in Scotland?

Not necessarily. Ordinary trespass is generally a civil matter in Scotland, but certain forms of unauthorised occupation or camping can constitute a criminal offence.

Section 3 of the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 addresses specific conduct, including lodging in premises or occupying or encamping on private land without the consent and permission of the owner or legal occupier. Crucially, the section expressly excludes acts carried out in the exercise of access rights under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

This distinction matters because Scotland has a statutory system of outdoor access rights. Private ownership does not automatically mean that members of the public are prohibited from walking across or responsibly camping on the land.

The question is not simply whether the land is privately owned. It is whether the person is exercising a legal access right or engaging in conduct that falls outside it.

2. What rights do people have to camp in Scotland?

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 provides access rights over much of Scotland's land and inland water, provided people exercise those rights responsibly.

Responsible wild camping is generally permitted on suitable unenclosed land. A person may, for example, walk into the countryside, pitch a small tent for a short stay, avoid disturbing others, take their rubbish away and leave the ground undamaged.

The Scottish Outdoor Access Code recommends lightweight camping in small numbers, usually for two or three nights in one place, and moving on before causing environmental damage.

However, access rights do not cover every location or activity. They generally exclude areas such as the immediate surroundings of houses, private gardens, certain buildings and compounds, and some other specified places. They also do not provide a general right to drive or park a motor vehicle on someone else's land.

A tent pitched in suitable open countryside may therefore be lawful without the landowner's permission, while an apparently similar tent beside a residential property may raise different legal issues.

3. What could have happened in Oban?

The newspaper report confirms that two men were charged under Section 3, but it does not establish the precise facts that led to the charges.

Several possibilities could explain the situation.

The campsite may have been outside the statutory access rights. If the land was part of a residential property, a yard, a compound or another excluded area, the legal position could be different from responsible camping in open countryside.

The nature or circumstances of the occupation may have mattered. A group staying in one place for months is not automatically committing a crime merely because of the duration. However, the circumstances could raise questions about whether the activity remained responsible camping and whether the statutory access rights applied.

There may have been other relevant facts. The exact location, the character of the land, the activities taking place and the evidence available to police could all be significant.

It would be wrong to conclude that the men were guilty simply because they were charged. A charge is an allegation to be dealt with through the justice system, not proof of guilt. The published report does not tell us whether the men were subsequently convicted.

4. Can residents' complaints alone justify an arrest?

Residents have every right to raise legitimate concerns about safety, obstruction, nuisance or suspected criminal activity. Police Scotland can investigate reports and assess whether an offence may have occurred.

However, a complaint is not proof that a crime has been committed.

If a person is camping responsibly in an area covered by statutory access rights, the mere fact that a resident dislikes the campsite or objects to someone being there does not automatically create a criminal offence under Section 3.

Conversely, if officers have a lawful basis to believe that someone is committing an offence, they do not have to ignore the matter simply because the person describes themselves as a wild camper.

Section 4 of the 1865 Act also makes provision for apprehension in specified circumstances and for proceedings where a person has not been taken into custody. The precise lawful basis for an arrest or other police action depends on the facts and applicable powers.

5. What if someone moves their tent to a different location?

Moving to another location does not automatically make someone a trespasser, nor does it guarantee that camping is lawful.

Imagine three different situations:

• Open countryside: A person moves from one suitable camping spot to another, exercises access rights responsibly and causes no damage. The statutory access rights may continue to protect that activity.

• A residential area: A person moves their tent a few metres but remains within an area excluded from access rights. Moving the tent does not resolve the underlying legal issue.

• A public park: A person camps in a park where a valid and applicable legal restriction prohibits camping. Moving to another corner of the same park may not help if the restriction applies throughout the park.

The location and applicable law matter more than the distance moved.

6. Can a council or police officer simply order someone to leave?

Not in every circumstance merely because someone objects to their presence.

An officer should be able to explain the legal basis for the action being taken. Depending on the circumstances, that may involve identifying the relevant legislation, a valid byelaw or management rule, or another applicable power.

Councils can make certain rules governing land and facilities under statutory powers, and particular breaches can have legal consequences. But those powers must be exercised within the limits of the legislation that authorises them. A council rule cannot simply erase statutory access rights wherever those rights apply.

Equally, a person should not assume that an instruction is unlawful merely because the officer has not immediately produced a printed copy of the relevant legislation. The sensible response is to ask calmly which power is being relied upon, record the details and challenge the decision through the appropriate process if necessary.

7. What if the police cannot establish that an offence has occurred?

Suppose officers attend a campsite following a complaint but cannot establish that the location falls outside access rights, cannot identify an applicable restriction and have no other evidence of a criminal offence.

The complaint alone would not prove an offence under Section 3. Officers would need a lawful basis for any arrest and must act within their powers.

That does not mean police can never investigate without having every fact confirmed in advance. Investigations exist to establish what happened. The relevant question is whether the legal requirements for the particular police action are met, not whether somebody has complained.

It is also important to distinguish between an arrest, a charge, a report to the Procurator Fiscal and a conviction. These are different stages of the justice process.

8. What about claims that the men were begging?

The newspaper reported that claims had been made that the men were begging for money. The article does not establish that those claims were proved, nor does it establish that begging was the basis of the Section 3 charges.

The legal position must be assessed according to the actual conduct and the offence alleged. It would be misleading to treat an unverified claim as proof of criminal behaviour or to assume that it explains the charges.

Conclusion: The law depends on the facts, not assumptions

The Oban case illustrates why it is important to understand Scotland's access legislation before reaching conclusions about people camping on land.

People do not have an unrestricted right to occupy any piece of land they choose. At the same time, landowners and members of the public cannot assume that all camping without express permission is criminal. Scotland's statutory access rights protect responsible outdoor recreation across much of the country, while leaving specific activities and locations outside those rights.

The key questions in any particular case are: Where exactly was the tent pitched? Did statutory access rights apply? Was the activity responsible? Was there a valid and applicable restriction? And what evidence supported the alleged offence?

Until the relevant facts of the Alma Crescent case are established, the reported charges should not be treated as proof that the men were guilty or as evidence that responsible wild camping is generally unlawful in Scotland.

Understanding the distinction between lawful access, civil trespass and criminal offending is essential to protecting both community interests and individual rights.