A small hill in the Borders is perhaps one of the most walker unfriendly places in Scotland thanks to the local farmer. Here Dave Hewitt presents the case for the prosecution.
The name Deephope won't mean much to the majority of hillgoers, nor will the curious name Law Kneis, but the latter is a 498m hill in the Scottish Borders just south of Ettrick village and Deephope is the smallholding at the start of what looks to be the easiest and most tempting way up Law Kneis, via a right of way through some forestry. Trouble is, Deephope is notorious as the home of arguably Scotland's most anti-walker resident, one James Irvine, and he's been in the news again.
A recent edition of the Selkirk Advertiser carried a court report from late February in which the opening sentence set the scene pretty well - "A sheriff this week criticised an Ettrick Valley farmer who was said to have gone berserk at a family out for a Sunday stroll." The fine phrase "countryside rage" was then used and the report went on to tell of how Irvine, aged 61, was prosecuted after he "shouted and swore at a family of five as they crossed a bridge at his Deephope Farm during last year's foot and mouth crisis" and "assaulted [a] mother as she tried to persuade him to stop swearing in front of her three children". The bridge in question, across the Tima Water, is at grid ref NT278138 on Landranger 79. As things stand, it ought to be crossed only by the very brave or the very reckless.
At Selkirk sheriff court Irvine admitted breaching the peace on 24 June 2001 "by behaving in a disorderly manner and shouting and swearing to the alarm and distress of a couple and their children, aged nine, 12 and 14 years". He also pleaded guilty to a charge of "assaulting the mother by taking hold of her by the elbow, to her alarm and distress". A third charge, that he had shaken the woman violently, was dropped, while Irvine's plea of not guilty to an allegation that he had punched the woman's husband on the face was accepted by the court. Irvine, who had originally denied all charges, was fined £350 and has announced his intention to appeal.
The local procurator fiscal, Lesley Thomson, stated that Irvine had emerged when the family was crossing the bridge and had started "shouting at them, swearing and using abusive terms. They continued over the bridge and the accused caught up with them. He continued to shout and swear, and [the mother] asked him to stop because of the children. He continued to swear and grabbed her by the arm." The husband then intervened and was "subjected to swearing".
For the defence, Allison Marshall argued that the offence had happened during the foot and mouth outbreak, that Irvine had sheep on his farm and that flocks elsewhere in the area had been slaughtered. Irvine thus became concerned "when he saw the family appear from Forestry Commission land [the track network on the north-western slopes of Law Kneis] and approach the bridge which links his farm with a public road." Marshall told the court that "[Irvine] did not know where they had been or if they had possibly been in contact with foot and mouth. He says he took hold of [the assaulted woman] by the elbow to turn her round to see foot and mouth warning notices. This was a one-off incident brought about by worry over foot and mouth. He is not in the habit of going around the countryside shouting and swearing at people."
Well, while appreciating that landowners, smallholders and farmers were genuinely fearful during the foot and mouth episode, this column begs leave to suggest, m'lud, that Irvine's assault was by no means "a one-off incident". Irvine is very much "in the habit" of doing this - indeed, while it appears to have been the first time that he has been caught, prosecuted and convicted, he has a long history of precisely this kind of aggressive behaviour to innocent walkers, dating back to well before foot and mouth could have been invoked in mitigation.
Rummaging through my records, it troubles me somewhat to find that I first wrote about Irvine's behaviour as far back as the spring of 1995. I know the exact date when he first came to my attention, not because I personally encountered his brand of countryside rage but through being on hand to see a third party visibly distressed as a result of an encounter. The day in question was 18 March 1995 and I'd driven into the Borders with friends to meet Rowland and Ann Bowker who had travelled up from the Lakes. The date was significant, this being when Rowland Bowker became the first person to reach the landmark of 1,000 Marilyns - ie. his hillgoing had proved eclectic enough to have taken in 1,000 of the 1,500-odd hills on Alan Dawson's list of British hills with 150m or more all-round drop.
The intended 1000th hill was Turner Cleuch Law, a mid-height Borders bump, but when the party assembled it was clear that Rowland was agitated and angry. The reason? With a few minutes spare ahead of the planned rendezvous, he and Ann had driven along to Ettrick to check out the approach route for a future ascent of a Marilyn they had yet to climb, Law Kneis. They had no intention of going up it at that stage - there wasn't time - but this didn't stop James Irvine from intervening.
I quote from what I wrote shortly afterwards, in issue 23 of The Angry Corrie - "The Bowkers had gone only yards off the public road when they encountered a barking dog, then a barking landowner. The latter started ranting about "people like you", before coming out with a choice phrase: "The Scottish right to roam is all finished now." He also told them that the bridge was unsafe to cross - even though it patently wasn't - and pursued [the Bowkers] back to the car, on which he proceeded to bang with his fists."
So that was seven years ago - and although it's quite possible that there were similar incidents even earlier, we know for sure that the "one-off" and foot and mouth-related aspects of the June 2001 assault are a little dubious, to say the least.
The next witness I would like to call is Chris Upson of Glasgow. It was Upson who drew my attention to the recent court case and he has good reason to maintain an interest in developments at Deephope. On 10 October 1999 he also attempted to cross the bridge and immediately became aware of shouting and swearing. What Upson described as "an insane-looking red-faced man" charged towards him and "in the most aggressive fashion possible" swore at him and threatened to give him "a good kicking". Upson, like Rowland Bowker four years earlier, reports that he made "the mistake of trying to reason with [Irvine] which only made him more angry". More swearing and more threats of kicking ensued, so Upson turned to walk away - "at which point he shoved me in the back. When I was some distance away he then started running straight at me down the public road with more threats of violence."
Not good. This was also reported at some length in The Angry Corrie, and the unexpurgated text of Irvine's utterances, f-words and all, can be found via the issue 49 link from bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tac/
Upson gave a statement to the Selkirk police - "but they didn't seem interested". He also spoke with Helen Hermiston at the nearby Angecroft Caravan Park - "from where I had phoned the police when I was feeling very shaky just after the assault. Helen had a folder with about 50 other statements from people abused and assaulted by the same Mr Irvine of Deephope, Ettrick." Upson has subsequently described this folder of complaints and allegations as "an inch or so thick". Summit Talks intends to contact Helen Hermiston to try and put more detail on this. Contact will also be made with Forest Enterprise, there having been further allegations of assaults on forestry workers going about their lawful business at the entrance to the forest at Deephope.
A few other observations for now. First, Deephope has been on the market for much of the past couple of years - Richard Webb of Wolverhampton reports having seen For Sale boards in July 2000. Until very recently it was featured in the list of properties at www.propertylynx.co.uk, offers over £185,000, described as being "a traditional detached farmhouse in a area of unspoiled natural charm". The online details have been removed within the past week - although whether this means that James Irvine has succeeded in moving on remains unclear (and, if so, the health and safety people should surely be kept informed as to where he is flitting).
Then there is the question of the legitimacy of the access route taken by the Bowkers, by Chris Upson, by the unnamed assaulted woman and by the inch-thick file of complainants who contacted the campsite. While assault and aggression is never in order, could it be that Irvine has a genuine grievance about walkers using the section of track outside his house as a shortcut into the forest. After all, while Marilynbaggers bound for Law Kneis are thin on the ground, gentle forest-strollers (including, surely, the family in the court case) must be fairly common.
I cite in evidence the 1999 revised edition of the Scottish Rights of Way Society's book Scottish Hill Tracks, effectively the bible of those in search of nailed-down, 100%-legitimate, all year round access in Scotland. And route 31, Ettrick to Hawick or Teviothead, on pages 29-30, starts thus: "From Ramseycleuch on the Ettrick Water take the B709 road S for 1km to Deephope (footbridge) where a forest track ascends steeply NE..." So it is a right of way and neither James Irvine nor anyone outwith the upper echelons of government has any say whatsoever over the fundamental right of ordinary people to walk this route.
However, while it is good to see that action has finally been taken against Irvine by the police and the courts, it is slightly worrying to receive this report from Bill Fairmaner of Birmingham: "I visited Law Kneis in February [2002], from Deephope. But courtesy of Borders Forest Trust (bless 'em), there's a car park and way-marked trail starting a little less than 1km south of the farm. The main trail leads through to the forest road and on up the hill. No nasty confrontation to report from my visit but one word of warning: there's not much to direct folk heading down towards Deephope off the road and on to the trail. A "Beware bully in farm" sign would do just nicely."
Now, on the face of it, this is a blessed relief and ought certainly to reduce the incidents at Deephope, providing a (probably) trouble-free approach route from that same side of the hill. But surely, although well intended, this is the wrong way to deal with the problem. The route past Deephope was and remains a perfectly valid right of way and by putting in an alternative route the authorities (who were surely well aware of the history of problems) have effectively provided Irvine with what he was after all along. It might not have been intended that way but it does seem that aggressive, abusive, illegal behaviour has got a result.
There has been a history of this elsewhere in the country - most notably beneath Beinn Enaiglair near Ullapool. Here the smallholder, while not physically aggressive in the way that Irvine has been shown to be, was undoubtedly stroppy and difficult with walkers on a similarly legitimate route. Again the authorities spent taxpayers' money in constructing a short (and squelchy) diversion round the disputed property. Surely the right solution in such cases is for the councils and land management agencies to come down hard on the aggressor. They should be encouraging and empowering the innocent walker by waymarking the original route, rather than literally finding a way round the problem by putting in a diversion.
Otherwise, walkers will continue to be hassled and smallholders such as Irvine will point to the "diversion" by way of further arguing their case. This in turn could lead to further serious incidents over time. Also, by declining to become fully engaged, the authorities are increasing the chance that some future incident will lead to the aggressive smallholder being adopted as hero-cum-martyr by the countryside lobby - a far from unlikely turn of events given the current edgy political climate.
So, for now, the only completely safe ways up Law Kneis are those that entirely avoid Deephope - eg. by the forest-track system coming in from the infinitely more friendly Buccleuch to the east. But work needs to be done at Deephope - not by individuals (for whom Irvine appears to be far too risky an opponent) but by the intervention of official agencies. At least we now know that the February conviction means that Irvine's antics will be under close scrutiny from now on.
If anyone else has any first-hand reports of trouble at Deephope, I'd be interested to hear from them. Likewise anyone wishing to stand up in defence of James Irvine (or Irvine himself - it would be good to hear his side of the story but I'm not going to knock on his door). For now the last word ought to go to Sheriff McIntyre, who sentenced Irvine at Selkirk. "I am surprised at a man of your age doing this sort of thing," the sheriff said. "Foot and mouth was a worrying time, but this action is what you get from youths of 19 years."
Dave Hewitt
18/4/2002
You can contact Dave at Dave.Hewitt@dial.pipex.com
