National Trust of Australia (W.A.) By-laws 1972

The central organising concept is “trust property”, defined in by-law 1A as any lands, buildings, or places vested in, acquired or owned by, or under the control of, The Trust. This is a deliberately expansive definition. It captures not only land the Trust holds freehold but also leasehold, licence arrangements, or any place where the Trust exercises de facto control. The definition does not require the property to be open to the public. It extends to buildings used for storage, offices, or staff accommodation if they fall within the Trust’s control. The word “places” is notably broad and could include car parks, courtyards, water bodies, and even floating structures. Because the by-laws apply to “any trust property”, a person may inadvertently commit an offence on land they did not realise was under Trust control.

A second key concept is “consent of the Trust” or “written permission”. Many prohibitions are absolute unless the Trust grants prior written permission. By-law 10 requires that any written permission be signed by the Secretary or a person duly authorised by the Trust. This imposes a formal requirement: oral permission is insufficient. The person seeking to rely on a permission must ensure it is in writing and signed by the correct officer. The Trust can attach any conditions to its consent (by-law 3(1)(f)) and impose fees (by-law 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(b)). There is no statutory limit on what those conditions or fees may be, and no right of review.

The third concept is the “public entrance” and “open to the public” notice. By-law 3(1)(a) and (aa) require that a person enter only at times specified on a conspicuously exhibited notice at or near the entrance, and only through an entrance marked as a public entrance. This means the Trust can close the property to the public entirely or restrict entry to certain gates simply by posting a sign. There is no requirement for the public to have any guaranteed right of access.

Another important concept is “authorised person”. This is not defined in the by-laws but is referenced in by-law 2(l) (obstruction of officers), by-law 8 (refusal of admission), by-law 9 (removal of animals), and by-law 10 (signing permissions). The Trust can delegate authority to any person, including employees or contractors. The breadth of delegation means that an authorisation can be informal and the public may not know who holds it.

The by-laws also rely on “notices” extensively. By-law 2(t) makes it an offence to act contrary to or fail to comply with a notice on a sign erected by or on behalf of the Trust. This creates a mechanism for the Trust to impose additional prohibitions or conditions without amending the by-laws. A sign could, for example, ban photography, require quiet behaviour, or restrict access to certain trails. The penalty for ignoring the sign is the same $100 fine.

Finally, “litter”, “offal”, “noisome substance”, “defacing”, “interfering with”, and “annoyance” are used but not defined. These terms invite subjective interpretation and may lead to inconsistent enforcement. For example, “interfere with” in by-law 2(r) could cover touching a rope, leaning on a barrier, or rearranging a sign. The vagueness of such terms is a recognised cost: it imposes uncertainty on visitors and gives the Trust’s officers broad discretion to decide what constitutes an offence.

The primary group affected is any person who enters or remains on trust property. This includes tourists, day trippers, researchers, students, teachers, sportspeople, artists, performers, vendors, campers, and members of community groups. It also includes people who live near trust property but discharge a firearm from outside (by-law 4), or who ride or drive an animal or vehicle on trust property without staying on a designated road or path (by-law 5). The by-laws do not carve out an exception for neighbours exercising easements, utility workers, or emergency services, though such persons might rely on a separate legal authority to be present.

Businesses are particularly affected. By-law 3(1)(c) prohibits selling or exposing goods for sale on trust property without the Trust’s consent. This catches commercial photographers, tour guides, food vendors, souvenir sellers, and anyone offering services for payment. The Trust can charge fees and impose conditions, which may exclude small operators or advantage preferred contractors. By-law 3(1)(d) catches performers, entertainers, and meeting organisers. A wedding party holding a ceremony on trust property, a bushwalking club running a guided walk, or a protest group assembling all require consent. The discretion is unfettered.

People with animals are also affected. By-law 2(m) prohibits permitting or suffering any animal to be on trust property unless the Trust has granted permission. This extends to domestic pets, horses, and even livestock. There is no exception for guide dogs (though disability discrimination laws may override as a matter of other law). The Trust can revoke permission at any time.

People with disabilities or diminished capacity may be affected by the “disorderly or insulting manner” prohibition in by-law 6(2) and the “annoyance or inconvenience” test for refusing admission in by-law 8. Those whose behaviour is perceived as disorderly due to a neurological condition or who use loud speech could be excluded. The intoxication provision (by-law 6(1)) is absolute: a person in a state of intoxication cannot enter or remain, without any defence of medical need or lawful medication.

Researchers and scientists are differently treated. By-law 7(1) allows the Trust to grant use of trust property for scientific or cultural purposes, including camping and use of buildings. By-law 7(2) separately permits scientists, teachers, students, athletes, youth leaders, and certain club officers to conduct research, experiments, class inspections, and approved sport or social gatherings. The Trust may impose conditions. This creates a two-tier system: ordinary visitors are subject to default prohibitions, while approved groups can secure privileges that would otherwise be offences. But there is no statutory right to these permissions; the Trust may decline without reason.

Finally, Trust officers and employees are affected because they bear enforcement responsibilities. Under by-law 2(l), they must be obeyed when making lawful requests. Failure to comply is an offence. This gives officers authority akin to security guards, and obstructing them is another $100 offence. The Trust itself is affected in that it must issue written permissions and maintain signs, but the by-laws impose no duties on the Trust; all duties fall on the visitor.

The by-laws create only duties for visitors; they confer no positive rights other than the right to seek permission from the Trust (which the Trust may grant or deny at its discretion). Theoretically, the only right a person has on trust property is to be present in compliance with the by-laws. That right is conditional: the person must enter only during open hours through a public entrance, pay any fees, comply with all signs, and refrain from any prohibited act.

The key duties on any person entering trust property include the duty not to deposit litter (except in provided receptacles), not to break glass, not to damage or remove aboriginal relics or archaeological sites, not to interfere with any dam, building, path, sign, or fixture, not to remove or damage any vegetation (including dead timber), not to dig or excavate, not to carry or discharge any firearm or other weapon, not to set traps or hunt any animal (including bees and fish), not to take eggs or interfere with nests, not to light fires except as permitted under the Bush Fires Act 1954 and any additional conditions posted, not to pollute water, not to play amplified music or operate a television or radio without permission, not to smoke inside a building open for the display of furniture or furnishings, and not to fly model aircraft. The duty not to act contrary to any sign (by-law 2(t)) creates an obligation to read and comply with all notices.

Additional duties arise under by-law 3: the duty not to enter outside open hours or through non-public entrances; not to erect a tent or structure for occupation; not to sell goods; not to hold or take part in any performance, entertainment, or meeting unless the Trust’s consent has been obtained and conditions and fees met. By-law 3(2) imposes a duty to pay any fees and comply with conditions even for ordinary entry during open hours. By-law 5 imposes a duty to stay on designated roads or paths when riding or driving any animal or vehicle, and to park only in areas marked by signs. By-law 6 imposes a duty not to be intoxicated on the property, and not to behave in a disorderly or insulting manner or use bad language or commit a nuisance or indecency.

The only rights that could be asserted are procedural. By-law 8 gives the Trust the right to refuse admission, but a person who has been refused on arbitrary grounds might challenge that decision under administrative law (though the by-laws themselves offer no internal review). A person who has obtained written permission can rely on that permission as a defence to a charge under the by-laws, provided the permission was in force and the person complied with its conditions. By-law 2(l) gives a person the right to be free from obstruction by officers if the officer’s request is not lawful; but the burden falls on the person to assess lawfulness.

Importantly, the by-laws impose no duties on the Trust. The Trust does not have to keep property open, does not have to provide receptacles, does not have to maintain paths, does not have to ensure signs are accurate, and does not have to respond to requests for permission within any timeframe. There is also no duty to act reasonably in granting or withholding consent. This asymmetry is a significant feature: the Trust holds all discretionary power, and the visitor bears all risk of non-compliance.

By-law 11 provides that any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of the by-laws is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of $100. This is a single fixed maximum penalty; there is no minimum penalty, no daily penalty for continuing offences, and no penalty escalation for subsequent offences. The penalty amount has remained unchanged since the by-laws were first made in 1972. Adjusted for inflation using CPI, $100 in 1972 would be worth approximately $1,200 in 2024 dollars. The fixed sum thus represents a very low deterrent today. It also means that a person who commits multiple separate breaches on the same visit (e.g., littering, smoking inside a building, and walking off a path) could theoretically face multiple $100 fines, but each charge would be a simple offence with low potential penalty.

Enforcement is likely handled by the Trust’s own officers or by police. The by-laws do not create a power of arrest, nor do they provide for the seizure of property (such as a firearm or vehicle). An officer can require a person to leave (by-law 2(l) makes refusal to comply with a lawful request an offence), but forceful removal would need to be effected through common law trespass remedies or police assistance. The penalty can be recovered through the ordinary criminal courts; the low amount may make prosecution uneconomical unless the Trust has a strong incentive to deter particular behaviour. In practice, enforcement may be limited to issuing infringement notices (if the by-laws are prescribed under the criminal procedure legislation) or verbal warnings.

By-law 8 allows the Trust or an authorised person to refuse admission to any person who in their opinion would be likely to cause annoyance or inconvenience, or any intoxicated person, or any person found guilty of a breach of these by-laws. This is a civil power, not a criminal penalty, but it can be used to ban people pre-emptively. Because “annoyance or inconvenience” is subjective and not defined, this power could be exercised arbitrarily. A person banned under this provision has no right of appeal within the by-laws and would need to rely on judicial review principles.

By-law 9 allows any person authorised by the Trust to remove any animal found trespassing on trust property. This does not authorise destruction of the animal unless other laws apply. The owner of the animal may have committed an offence under by-law 2(m) (permitting or suffering an animal to be on trust property without permission). The animal can be removed and presumably impounded, but the by-laws do not specify how the owner reclaims it or what happens if the animal is not claimed.

The penalty regime is noteworthy for what it lacks: no provision for serving infringement notices, no power to issue on-the-spot fines, no power to detain, and no escalation for aggravated damage. This suggests the by-laws were designed for a time when the Trust had limited enforcement resources and the $100 fine was a meaningful sum. Today, the regime may be more symbolic than practical, but it still exposes a person to a criminal record if prosecuted in a court, even for a minor technical breach.

The interaction with the criminal law should also be noted. The act of damaging trust property could also be a criminal offence under the Criminal Code (WA) (e.g., criminal damage). The by-laws provide a lower-threshold alternative that does not require proof of wilfulness or value. However, the $100 penalty may be seen as trivial in that context. Conversely, prosecuting under the by-laws may be the only option if the property damage cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt or if the value is very low.

The by-laws explicitly reference the Bush Fires Act 1954 and the Bush Fires Regulations 1954 in by-law 2(p). This paragraph exempts from the prohibition on lighting fires any fire that complies with those Acts and with any additional conditions determined and notified by the Trust. The effect is that a person lighting a fire on trust property must satisfy both the general bushfire control laws and any Trust-specific rules. The Trust can add restrictions beyond those in the Bush Fires Act, but it cannot remove any protections that Act provides. The by-laws do not, however, incorporate other environmental or land management legislation.

The by-laws also interact with heritage protection laws through by-law 2(c), which prohibits removing, defacing, damaging or destroying any aboriginal relic, aboriginal rock carving, aboriginal painting or archaeological site. This duplicates protections that may exist under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) or the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth). The by-law provides an additional enforcement option with a low penalty, but it does not override the more serious penalties available under those Acts. A person who destroys an aboriginal heritage site could be prosecuted under both regimes, subject to double jeopardy principles.

Property law interacts with the by-laws in that the Trust’s control over trust property is not unlimited. The Trust holds land subject to its enabling Act and any trusts or conditions on which the land was acquired. The by-laws cannot authorise the Trust to violate those conditions. For example, if the Trust holds land on trust for public recreation, the by-laws cannot be used to permanently exclude the public without proper authority. However, the by-laws give the Trust the ability to restrict access at certain times or through certain entrances, which may be compatible with the public purpose.

The by-laws do not mention the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) or the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The broad discretion to refuse admission “likely to cause annoyance or inconvenience” could be exercised in a discriminatory manner. If such discrimination occurs, the victim could pursue a complaint under anti-discrimination law, which would prevail over the by-laws to the extent of any inconsistency. Similarly, the blanket ban on animals without permission could conflict with the requirement to allow assistance animals under the Disability Discrimination Act. In that case, the Trust must make a reasonable accommodation.

Work health and safety laws also apply to trust property. The Trust, as a person conducting a business or undertaking, has duties under the Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA) to ensure the health and safety of workers and others. The by-laws do not address safety obligations; a visitor may be committing an offence under the by-laws while simultaneously being owed a duty of care by the Trust (e.g., a person who digs without permission may be in breach of by-law 2(h), but if the Trust knew of the unsafe condition and did not warn, it could be liable). The by-laws should not be used to shift safety responsibility onto visitors.

The by-laws also intersect with local government law. Many trust properties may be located within local government areas. The by-laws do not state that they replace local laws on littering, parking, animal control, or noise. A person could potentially be charged under both a local law and these by-laws for the same conduct. The double-jeopardy rule would prevent double punishment, but enforcement by two different bodies remains possible.

Finally, the by-laws interact with the general criminal law. Many of the prohibited acts (e.g., discharging a firearm, hunting animals, damaging property) are also offences under the Criminal Code or the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. The by-laws provide a lower-threshold and lower-penalty option, which may be attractive for enforcement where the Crown cannot prove a higher mens rea or where the damage is minor. However, this also means that a serious offence could be downgraded to a by-law infringement, potentially undermining the deterrent effect of the primary legislation.

The original National Trust of Australia (W.A.) By-laws were gazetted on 13 October 1972 and commenced that same day. The by-laws consisted of ten by-laws numbered 1 to 11 (there was no by-law 1A originally). The penalty was $100 from the start.

The only amendment occurred on 19 November 1982 via the National Trust of Australia (W.A.) Amendment By-laws 1982, gazetted on 19 November 1982 with immediate commencement. This amendment made three changes. First, it inserted by-law 1A, which provides the definition of “trust property”. Before this insertion, the term “trust property” was not defined in the by-laws themselves, though it could have been interpreted by reference to the principal Act. The insertion clarified that the by-laws apply to any lands, building, or places vested in, acquired or owned by, or under the control of, the Trust. This broadened the reach of the by-laws to places the Trust controlled but might not own.

Second, the 1982 amendment amended by-law 2. The original by-law 2 contained paragraphs (a) through (s). The amendment added paragraph (t) (acting contrary to a notice on a sign) and paragraph (u) (smoking in a building open for display of furniture or furnishings). It also made minor adjustments to the wording of some existing paragraphs. The addition of paragraph (t) was significant because it gave the Trust the power to create new prohibitions simply by erecting a sign, without needing further amendment to the by-laws. This increased the flexibility of the regulatory regime but also reduced certainty for the public.

Third, the 1982 amendment amended by-law 3. The original by-law 3 had contained only a basic prohibition on entering outside hours, camping, selling goods, and holding performances or meetings, subject to consent. The amendment streamlined the language, added paragraph (aa) prohibiting entry other than through a public entrance, and clarified that the Trust could impose conditions and fees for ordinary entry during open hours (by-law 3(2)). This effectively introduced a power to charge admission fees without prior amendment to the by-laws.

Since the 1982 amendment, no further changes have been made to the by-laws. The reprint at 4 June 2004 reproduces the text as amended in 1982, with notes referring to the amendment table. The citation was changed from “National Trust of Australia (W.A.) By-laws” to “National Trust of Australia (W.A.) By-laws 1972” as noted at footnote 3. The Bush Fires Regulations reference was updated editorially under the Reprints Act 1984 to reflect a name change in the regulations.

The lack of amendment for over 40 years is striking. It means the by-laws have not been adapted to reflect changes in technology (e.g., drones are not mentioned; model aircraft are banned but drones are arguably a subset, but the wording “model aircraft of any description” may cover them), changes in social norms (e.g., smoking indoors is now more widely restricted, but the by-law only bans it in buildings open for display of furniture), or changes in penalty scales. The $100 penalty has lost virtually all deterrent sting. The by-laws have also not been updated to include a review mechanism, an internal appeals process, or a provision for the Trust to publish its policies on granting consent. This legislative stagnation is itself a feature: it leaves the Trust with very old rules that it may or may not have the appetite to enforce, and it leaves the public with little guidance on how the Trust exercises its discretion.

The source document contains no reference to any litigation concerning these by-laws. There is no noted case in the compilation table, no savings or transitional provisions arising from a court decision, and no annotation indicating that any by-law has been struck down, interpreted, or applied by a court. This is not surprising given the low penalty amount and the likely infrequency of prosecution.

However, the absence of recorded litigation does not mean the by-laws are immune from challenge. The by-laws could be challenged on several grounds. The first is unreasonableness: a by-law that prohibits entry through any entrance other than one marked as a public entrance, when the Trust may have marked only one entrance while closing others without notice, could be considered unreasonable and therefore ultra vires the enabling Act. The second is procedural: the by-laws were made by the Trust but require approval or gazettal, and any failure in that process could invalidate them. The third is vagueness: terms like “interfere with”, “annoyance”, “inconvenience”, and “insulting manner” may be so vague that a court finds them void for uncertainty, particularly in a criminal context where a person must know the act is prohibited.

Another potential litigation ground is inconsistency with other laws. If a trust property is subject to a public right of way or an easement, the by-laws could not be used to obstruct that right. Similarly, a person who has a licence to hunt or fish under a Wildlife Act might argue that the by-law 2(i) ban on hunting is inconsistent. The rule of implied repeal or inconsistency would apply, and a court might rule that the by-law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

There is also the possibility of judicial review of the Trust’s discretion to refuse admission or consent. The Trust’s refusal to grant permission could be challenged on administrative law grounds such as taking into account irrelevant considerations, failing to consider relevant considerations, or acting unreasonably in the Wednesbury sense. However, the by-laws give the Trust very broad discretion, and the courts have historically been reluctant to interfere with the internal management decisions of charitable bodies unless there is bad faith or procedural impropriety.

In practice, the low penalty may make it economically rational for a person to simply pay the $100 fine rather than mount a legal challenge. As a result, the by-laws may operate without judicial scrutiny despite containing provisions that could be vulnerable. This is a risk for the Trust: if a person with sufficient resources were prosecuted, the potential invalidation of a by-law could have wide consequences. The Trust’s reliance on signs to impose additional prohibitions (by-law 2(t)) is particularly exposed, because the person must be able to see and understand the sign. A sign that is not conspicuously exhibited or is ambiguous may not be enforceable.

In summary, there is no known litigation history from the source, but the by-laws are not litigation-proof. The most likely future litigation scenario is a challenge by an environmental or heritage group to a Trust decision to permit a development that damages aboriginal relics or vegetation, with the by-laws used as a sword or shield. Another scenario is a criminal defamation or malicious prosecution claim if a person is charged under a vague by-law. Given the age and structure of the by-laws, they are a sleeping legal asset that could generate significant administrative law costs if tested.

The first major gotcha is the broad definition of trust property in by-law 1A. A person may be on land that is under the control of the Trust without realising it, for example, a car park that the Trust manages but does not own, a walking trail on leased crown land, or a riverbank subject to a Trust conservation covenant. A person who picks a flower, launches a kayak, or lets their dog run on such land may commit an offence even though the land appears to be public. The by-laws do not require the Trust to post boundaries, only to post public entrance notices (and only for the purpose of by-law 3). The onus is on the visitor to know they are on trust property.

The second gotcha is the absolute ban on flying model aircraft (by-law 2(n)). The prohibition is not limited to motorised models, to aircraft over a certain size, or to commercial drones. It covers “any model aircraft of any description”. This would include a small hand-launched glider, a toy helicopter, or a drone used for photography. The Trust can grant written permission, but obtaining it is cumbersome. A visitor who flies a drone to capture scenic footage may be committing an offence, even if they hold a licence from CASA. The Trust could also classify a kite as a model aircraft, though that is less likely.

The third gotcha is the interaction between by-law 2(t) (acting contrary to a sign) and the Trust’s ability to post any notice. The sign does not need to be gazetted or approved by any external body. The Trust can effectively create new offences at any time by erecting a sign. A visitor who fails to read every sign at every entrance, or who misreads a sign, is at risk of an offence. There is no requirement for the sign to be “reasonable” or for the prohibition to be consistent with the by-laws’ underlying purpose. A sign could say “No photography” or “No sitting on the grass” and non-compliance is a $100 offence.

The fourth gotcha is the prohibition on smoking in “a building open to the public for the display of furniture or furnishings” (by-law 2(u)). This is oddly specific. It does not cover all buildings; it only covers buildings whose primary public purpose is displaying furniture or furnishings. A visitor who smokes in a museum that happens to contain some antique furniture but is not primarily a furniture display might argue it is not covered, but the Trust may take a different view. The by-law does not say “smoking prohibited in all buildings” nor does it say “smoking prohibited except in designated areas”. A person who smokes on the veranda of such a building may still be inside the building for the purposes of the by-law, depending on the interpretation.

The fifth gotcha is the “disorderly or insulting manner” provision in by-law 6(2). This is a criminal offence that could be triggered by speech alone. “Insulting manner” is not defined and could include swearing, jokes, or political slogans. The by-law does not require any other person to be offended; it is an objective standard that relies on the judgment of the officer present. This provision may be unacceptably vague for a criminal law, but until tested, it remains enforceable.

The sixth gotcha is the Trust’s power under by-law 8 to refuse admission to any person who “would be likely to cause annoyance or inconvenience”. This is a predictive test based on the Trust’s opinion. A person who has never been on trust property before could be refused entry because of their appearance, age, or a reputation they are unaware of. There is no right to know the reasons, and no appeal. The person could then be charged with trespassing if they attempt to enter. This combines a discretionary exclusion power with a criminal offence, creating potential for abuse.

The seventh gotcha is that the Trust’s permission, even if obtained in writing, is revocable. The by-laws do not state that permission is irrevocable. The Trust could issue a permission and then, before the event, revoke it without notice. The person relying on the permission would then be committing offences if they proceed. There is no protection for reliance.

The eighth gotcha is the absence of a “reasonable excuse” or “necessity” defence. A person who breaks glass to save a child’s life, or digs a hole to prevent a bushfire spreading, has no statutory defence under the by-laws. They would have to rely on common law duress of circumstances or necessity, which is uncertain. The by-laws do not exempt emergency services either; a firefighter entering trust property outside open hours to fight a fire could be charged unless the Trust has granted advance permission.

Finally, the negligible $100 penalty is a gotcha in the opposite direction: it may lull visitors into thinking the rules are trivial. But a conviction for any offence, even a by-law offence, can result in a criminal record. This can affect employment, visas, and professional licensing. The low penalty does not mean the offence is minor in its consequences.

Compliance with these by-laws requires a proactive and cautious approach because the rules are both broad and discretionary. The starting point for any visitor is to ascertain whether the land they intend to visit is trust property. This may not be obvious from signage alone. The Trust’s website, brochures, or a direct inquiry can confirm the status. If there is doubt, assume it is trust property.

Before visiting, check the Trust’s website or contact the Trust to find the opening hours and the designated public entrances for the property. The by-laws require that these be posted on signs, but the signs may not be visible from a distance. Plan to arrive only during public hours and use only marked public entrances. If you arrive outside those hours, do not enter even if the gate is unlocked; the offence is strict.

If you intend to do anything beyond passive walking and looking, obtain prior written permission. This includes: taking a dog or other animal (by-law 2(m)), playing music or using a radio (by-law 2(s)), flying a drone (model aircraft, by-law 2(n)), using a boat or craft on waters (by-law 2(o)), lighting a fire (by-law 2(p)), camping or erecting a tent (by-law 3(1)(b)), selling goods or services (by-law 3(1)(c)), holding a performance, entertainment, or meeting (by-law 3(1)(d)), and any scientific or cultural activity (by-law 7). Also obtain permission if you wish to ride a bicycle or horse (unless on a designated road or path, under by-law 5) or if you wish to park a vehicle outside a designated area. The permission must be in writing and signed by the Secretary or an authorised person (by-law 10). Keep the permission on your person while on the property.

For researchers, teachers, students, and group leaders, the specific avenue in by-law 7 is useful. Apply to the Trust well in advance, stating the purpose, the number of people, and the need for any structures or equipment. Comply with any conditions imposed, including paying fees. If the Trust imposes conditions that are onerous, consider whether the research can be conducted elsewhere. There is no right to appeal, so a refusal cannot be effectively contested unless you are prepared to seek judicial review.

When on trust property, obey all signs. Read every sign at every entrance and any signs posted within the property. If a sign says “No photography”, do not take photographs even if you believe the by-laws themselves do not prohibit photography. By-law 2(t) makes non-compliance with any sign a separate offence. Do not interfere with any barrier or line of demarcation (by-law 2(r)). If a rope or fence blocks a path, do not cross or move it, even if the path appears safe.

Control animals strictly. Unless you have obtained permission, do not bring any animal onto trust property. If you have permission, keep the animal under control and on a lead if required. If a Trust officer asks you to remove the animal, comply promptly. By-law 9 allows any authorised person to remove the animal, but the owner may still face an offence.

Do not smoke inside any building that is open to the public for the display of furniture or furnishings. Even if you see no signs, assume the prohibition applies. If in doubt, smoke outside and well away from the building.

Do not consume alcohol to the point of intoxication. The by-law does not quantify intoxication; if a Trust officer forms the view that you are in a state of intoxication and asks you to leave, you must leave or face an offence (by-law 6(1) and 2(l)).

If you are a commercial operator (photographer, tour guide, vendor), apply for a commercial use permission from the Trust. The Trust may charge a fee or require insurance. Do not conduct any commercial activity without that written permission. Be aware that the Trust may refuse without reason, so build time for negotiation into your business schedule.

Finally, if you are unsure about any activity, contact the Trust in writing and ask for clarification or permission. Document the request and response. Because the by-laws impose strict liability (there is no mental element in the offences), ignorance of a rule is no defence. Written record of permission is the only safe shield. If the Trust declines to respond, you should treat the activity as prohibited. Compliance is therefore heavily dependent on advance planning and conservative interpretation of the by-laws’ prohibitions. The cost of non-compliance is a $100 fine and a criminal conviction, which may far exceed the inconvenience of seeking permission.