Law - Basic criminal damage

HideShow resource information
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
        • 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
    • 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

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »