[citation needed] The powers of these roles relate exclusively to the enforcement of the Epping Forest Act 1878 and the byelaws made there under.
Not all byelaws that are in operation within Epping Forest are made under that Act and the constables have no specific police power in order to enforce them.
The new model placed a greater emphasis on Forest Keepers undertaking a highly visible "ambassadorial" role, rather than one that is just reactive and focuses on monitoring and enforcement.
Regardless, the Committee concluded that the wearing of personal protective equipment would make them look confrontational and is increasingly counter to the direction the service is going.
Forest Keepers are increasingly more often found leading volunteer tasks and chairing local community initiatives rather than telling people off.
This contrasts with the status of a council owned park which, whilst considered a public place when open, is in fact private property and the police would only have a responsibility to respond to incidents, rather than to patrol.
[31] The Act does not specify a geographical limit within which they can exercise those powers, suggesting that they can do so off of forest land if the matter is in relation to their jurisdiction.
In comparison, the City of London Corporation have granted Hampstead Heath Constabulary Officers this power, although it would not apply in Epping Forest.
This creates a legal anomaly in that the constabulary powers afforded by their attestation only relate to Hampstead Heath and cannot be exercised in any other park or open space under the control of the City of London.
[2] However, an anomaly exists that they only have the powers of a constable to enforce the specific byelaws made under Section 46 of the Epping Forest Act 1878.
The sections below offer some commentary on how modern day police powers may facilitate the execution of this historic office.
[39] The Theft Act 1968 specifically acknowledges in Section 34.2 (b) that an item "severed from the land by stealing" can be considered stolen goods.
This is further reinforced by their role in enforcing byelaws that create offences relating to going equipped to engage in poaching-like behaviour.
More commonly, arrest powers exercised under this Act may be where the Epping Forest Constable doubts the person's name and / or address.
[47] An Epping Forest Constable could find themselves in a position where they discover evidence of an offence to which they have no power of arrest, such as illegal drugs.
Any offence committed contrary to the Epping Forest Act 1878, or the byelaws contained therein, would attract a maximum penalty of £200.
The Forest Keepers sit within accountability arrangements that ultimately feed into the Court of Common Council of the City of London Corporation.
However, advice is sought from the City of London Police Professional Standards Department in relation to disciplinary issues.
The Forest Keepers are paid for out of charitable and private funds held by the City of London Corporation and, as such, their activity is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
[32] This contrasts with the status of most other constables appointed to serve within private constabularies, such as Port Police, who are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
An Epping Forest Keeper took the City of London Corporation to an industrial tribunal after he was dismissed following raising concerns regarding racist material being shown to him.
[57] The Keeper alleged that he was victimised as a result of raising concerns and that the act of showing him the material amounted to harassment.
[62][69] In 1617 the King granted to the Lord Warren of the forest the right to build and maintain a prison at Stratford, which remained in use intermittently.
Wanstead Flats attracted many people from the East End of London during the late 1800s, who valued the open space, as it is only a few miles away from the inner cities by foot and within easy reach of Forest Gate Station.
The East End was an eclectic mix of skilled and unskilled people that often lived in densely populated areas and who often worked in jobs with low wages and poor conditions.
[72] The rest of the "East End", which covers a broader area than the Tower Hamlets footprint, experienced similar levels of exponential population growth.
The East End was facing a perfect storm for raised tensions and, as such, it attracted social reformers and elements that sought to encourage support for more radical ideologies.
As such, Forest Keepers started to enforce by-laws preventing such public speaking and organised meetings that had previously been tolerated.
Following months of action by the Forest Keepers, including prosecutions, tensions came to a head when a "howling mob" (Chelmsford Chronicle, 25 September 1891) marched to the Flats.
It still remains an offence under by-law 40 to either engage in public speaking or to preach within Epping Forest without the permission of the Conservators.