<quote>
Quote:
It could also be argued that it would be reasonable to land when not in an emergency, but that is less likely to be recognised by the courts as a reasonable incident of the public right.
Why do you think that is less likely?</quote>
Because one of the defences to an action for trespass is that of necessity for the purposes of saving life, preventing injury and (possibly) preserving property. As a gliding lawyer who is an occasional visitor to fields with my aircraft, I felt the need to check this out. In theory (never tested in court) this might mean that there is no obligation to pay for damage caused by an emergency landing, though I suspect this is overridden by the strict liability provisions of the ANO. In practice, of course I pay for any crop damage (and offer the farmer a flight) because it would be rude and churlish not to do so.
Where there is a public right of way, that permits the public to "pass and repass" along it, but not e.g. to stand still and demonstrate on it. Landing an aircraft has not, so far as I know, been exmined by the courts in relation to rights of way, but it doesn't feel like passing and repassing.
Even if landing in an emergency were a trespass, this is the last thing I'd worry about. Land if possible, crash as safely as you can if not, and then leave the insurance company to deal with any claims by the landowner.