Law - Basic criminal damage
- Created by: mariehemmo
- Created on: 30-04-16 16:17
View mindmap
- Basic criminal damage (Criminal Damage Act 1971 1 (1) )
- AR: Damaging or destroying property belonging to another
- 1. Damging or destroying property - No staturtory definition of damage so question of fact + degree of jury to decide
- i. Effor/expense of rectifying damaged property: time, money to clear up + damage (Roe v Kingerlee)
- ii.Impairment of vale/ usefulness of damaged property: property may be damaged even if appearence of property is unchanged
- Impairment may be permanent or temporary
- R v Fiak
- R v Whiteley
- Impairment may be permanent or temporary
- iii. Nature of property: Morphitis v Salmon (scratch on scaffolding bar isnt damage)
- 2. Property: Defined in CDA 1971 S 10: Property of a tangible nature, real or personal
- Includes money, wild creatures tamed or kept in captivity. Excludes: wild mushrooms, wild flowers/ fruits/ foliage
- 3. Belonging to another: not limited to legal owner. Property belongs to any person who has custody/ control of property or proprietary right/ interest in property
- 1. Damging or destroying property - No staturtory definition of damage so question of fact + degree of jury to decide
- MR: Intent to cause damage/ destruction to property
- P ust prove that D intended the act which caused the criminal damage and D intended that that act should cause criminal damage
- Mistakenly believes causing damage to own property (R v Smith)
- MR: Recklessness as to whether property damged or destroyed
- Did D recognise conduct created unjustified risk of damage to property?
- Lawful excuse: CDA 1971 s.5
- 1.At the time of his acts which cause CD, he honestly believed that the person he believed was entitled to consent to the damage/ destruction of property has or would consent to that damage
- R v Denton
- 2. D damaged or destroyed property in order to protect his own or another's property
- AND D honestly believed that that property was in immediate need of proptection
- AND D honestly believed that his actions in proteccting that property were reasonable
- R v Hunt
- Defence wholly subjective: D's belief mu
- 1.At the time of his acts which cause CD, he honestly believed that the person he believed was entitled to consent to the damage/ destruction of property has or would consent to that damage
- AR: Damaging or destroying property belonging to another
Comments
No comments have yet been made