Criminal Damage Simple
- Created by: natalie..law
- Created on: 14-04-16 16:53
View mindmap
- Criminal Damage
- Criminal Damage Endangering Life (Aggravated)
- Where D damages property (typically by fire) either intending to endanger life or being reckless as to the prospect
- life imprisonment (max)
- Simple Criminal Damage s.1(1)
- incl.arson
- where CD and arson juries should be directed on both charged (R v Booth [1999])
- where D intentionally or recklessly damages property belonging to another s.10(2) + (3)
- anyone with custody or control of it s.10(2)(a) or having a proprietary right or interest or having charge of it/property subject to a trust s.10(3); belonging to a corporation s.10(4)
- 10 years (max)
- destroying or damaging
- the thing destroyed/damaged must be property
- property must belong to another
- intention or recklessness as to the prospect of the damage/destruction
- absence of lawful excuse
- Denton [1982] D burned own factory for insurance fraud, CD, quashed on basis that was not belonging to another - Lord Lane - "It is not an offence for a man to set light to his own property."
- intention or recklessness as to the prospect of the damage/destruction
- property must belong to another
- massive scope (breaking lead in pencil is damaging
- any alteration to the physical nature of the property can = damage (Roe v Kingerlee [1986] - prisoner, defaced prison cell walls - fact + degree
- damage is not defined; Morphitis v Salmon - each case is a question of fact and degree (Cox v Riley (1986))
- trivial harms are not CD but the amount of harm that counts as trivial depends on the thing harmed - adulterating milk with water (Roper v Knott [1898]; writing on a parking sign (Seray-White v DPP [2012])
- temporary impairment of usefulness/value (Morphitis v Salmon)
- dismantling a scaffold barrier in a road = CD even though individual parts were not damaged
- consistent with pre-1971 common law - (Fisher (1865) - machine held to be damaged by removal of parts necessary for it to work - here rendered whole machine inoperable for 2 hours - CD to machine which was useless for that period)
- impairing value/usefulness requires actual change in the property itself
- Drake v DPP - wheel clamp immobilising car not CD - needed 'some intrusion into the integrity of the object'
- arguable not good point - Lloyd v DPP [1991] - removing rotor arm = CD - Sir John Smith said Drake should be CD
- ‘if the car can be damaged by removing something, it seems logical that it can
be damaged by adding something.'
- Wilson - denial of use should always be CD where normal use cannot be restored without significant attention
- ‘if the car can be damaged by removing something, it seems logical that it can
be damaged by adding something.'
- arguable not good point - Lloyd v DPP [1991] - removing rotor arm = CD - Sir John Smith said Drake should be CD
- Drake v DPP - wheel clamp immobilising car not CD - needed 'some intrusion into the integrity of the object'
- impairing value/usefulness requires actual change in the property itself
- consistent with pre-1971 common law - (Fisher (1865) - machine held to be damaged by removal of parts necessary for it to work - here rendered whole machine inoperable for 2 hours - CD to machine which was useless for that period)
- dismantling a scaffold barrier in a road = CD even though individual parts were not damaged
- not always necesary to show some kind of impairment of value etc. - temporary or permanent changes of appearance (trivial) are enough
- Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary - soluble pavement graffiti CD as necessitated high-pressure water jet to remove it (cf. Blake v DPP)
- Roe v Kingerlee - even though walls easily cleanable
- but spitting on policeman's uniform was not CD (A (A Juvenile) v R [1978]) - diff. if needing dry cleaning say
- Henderson v Battley (1984) - D offloaded rubble from truck onto a site, owners claimed CD, D argued land was not damaged, just more rubble. DCourt held...
- ‘‘Damage can be of
various kinds. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “damage” is defined as “injury
impairing value or usefulness”. That is a definition which would fit in very
well with doing something to a cleared building site which at any rate for the
time being impairs its usefulness as such. In addition, as it necessitates work
and the expenditure of a large sum of money to restore it to its former state,
it reduces its present value as a building site.”
- Computer Hacking not CD - Computer Misuse Act 1990 s.3(6)
- ‘‘Damage can be of
various kinds. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “damage” is defined as “injury
impairing value or usefulness”. That is a definition which would fit in very
well with doing something to a cleared building site which at any rate for the
time being impairs its usefulness as such. In addition, as it necessitates work
and the expenditure of a large sum of money to restore it to its former state,
it reduces its present value as a building site.”
- Henderson v Battley (1984) - D offloaded rubble from truck onto a site, owners claimed CD, D argued land was not damaged, just more rubble. DCourt held...
- but spitting on policeman's uniform was not CD (A (A Juvenile) v R [1978]) - diff. if needing dry cleaning say
- Roe v Kingerlee - even though walls easily cleanable
- Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary - soluble pavement graffiti CD as necessitated high-pressure water jet to remove it (cf. Blake v DPP)
- temporary impairment of usefulness/value (Morphitis v Salmon)
- trivial harms are not CD but the amount of harm that counts as trivial depends on the thing harmed - adulterating milk with water (Roper v Knott [1898]; writing on a parking sign (Seray-White v DPP [2012])
- damage is not defined; Morphitis v Salmon - each case is a question of fact and degree (Cox v Riley (1986))
- any alteration to the physical nature of the property can = damage (Roe v Kingerlee [1986] - prisoner, defaced prison cell walls - fact + degree
- the thing destroyed/damaged must be property
- incl.arson
- Criminal Damage Act 1971
- Criminal Damage Endangering Life (Aggravated)
- Property s.10(1)
- property of a tangible nature whether real or personal including money and wild animals that are tamed, ordinarily kept in captivity, carcasses, but only if they have been reduced into possession which has not been lost or abandoned or are in the course of being reduced into possession but not incl. mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers, fruit, or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land
- land can be damaged (but not stolen)
- Intangible property not property for CD
- intention or recklessness
- if it is D's purpose or if not then he knows it is virtually certain to result from what is his purpose
- Mens Rea
Comments
No comments have yet been made