Criminal Damage
- Created by: Rebeka188
- Created on: 15-04-16 00:53
View mindmap
- s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - max 10yr
-
5. the ownership
- a) A person who intentionally damages property he think belongs to him, does not intentionally damage
property belonging to another
- (Smith- electric wires, he installed and removed - if he does so in the honest though mistaken belief that the property is his own, and provided that the belief is honestly held it is irrelevant to consider whether or not it is a justifiable belief
- a) A person who intentionally damages property he think belongs to him, does not intentionally damage
property belonging to another
-
5. the ownership
-
Sir John Smith: why should adding smtng not be damage if removing is
- Scots Law Commission: new offence - interference with property which causes harm of inconvenience
- 4. damage
- intention
- a) A person who intentionally damages property he think belongs to him, does not intentionally damage
property belonging to another
- (Smith- electric wires, he installed and removed - if he does so in the honest though mistaken belief that the property is his own, and provided that the belief is honestly held it is irrelevant to consider whether or not it is a justifiable belief
- 2.5(2)(b) acting in order to protect the property of himself or another
-
The section does not apply unless the measure taken is immediately necessary to protect the property.
- Hunt: set fire to bedding to make a point that fire alarm is not working- act not done to protect property - if an act was done 'in order to' protect property is an objective test
- Hill and Hall: possession of articles with intent to damage property, military base under attack, objectively D did not act in order to protect the property
- problem: it should have subjective meaning and we should interpret this decision as meaning that there was no immediate need to do so
- Hill and Hall: possession of articles with intent to damage property, military base under attack, objectively D did not act in order to protect the property
-
Chamberlain v Lindon:
he was entitled to demolish the wall, it was immaterial that D has second purpose to avoid litigation
- Mitchell: not followed this- rejected defence of recaption where D removed wheel clamps - self-help in last resort
- Hunt: set fire to bedding to make a point that fire alarm is not working- act not done to protect property - if an act was done 'in order to' protect property is an objective test
- DEFENCES:
s.5 "Without lawful excuse"
- self defence, duress, necessity
- 1.s.5(2) Belief in owners consent
- Jaggard v Dickinson:drunk,broke into the wrong house, believed he would have consent, exception to the drunken mistakes rule-- BUT not followed in Magee v CPS
-
The section does not apply unless the measure taken is immediately necessary to protect the property.
Comments
No comments have yet been made