criminal damage summary
- Created by: Susan Tate
- Created on: 19-04-16 09:56
View mindmap
- Criminal Damage
- Found under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.1 (1)
- AR: DESTROY OR DAMAGE PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER.
- 'PROPERTY'
- Very similar to how the Theft Act 2968 defines property.
- Differences
- Land is property which cannot be stolen but can be damaged, intangible rights cannot be damaged but they can be stolen
- Differences
- Set out in s.10 (1)
- Very similar to how the Theft Act 2968 defines property.
- MR: INTENTION OR RECKLESSN--ESS TO DO THE DAMAGE
- Proving the act is not enough, there must be intent to do the damage shown by the case of Pembliton. Also shown in the case of Seray - White 1874
- Recklessness
- The Caldwell Test was the old test when trying to find intention, held it was too harsh in application.
- In Elliott v C 1983 the D was incapable of appreciating the risk, but still guilty under the test
- In 2003 the case of Gemmel & Richards overruled the Caldwell test and reinstated a subjective test for recklessness
- The Caldwell Test was the old test when trying to find intention, held it was too harsh in application.
- 'DESTROY OR DAMAGE'
- This is not defined in the Act
- The old case of Gayford & Chouler 1891 held that even slight damage was sufficient to prove damage.
- Are not binding to the CDA but can be persuasive precedent.
- 'Destroy' is a much stronger word than damage, it includes where property has been made useless
- Roe V Kingerlee held that whether property had been damaged was by a 'matter of fact and degree'.
- A v R held that if the damage requires no cost or effort in repairing/cleaning up it is not criminal damage
- Fiak held that if there was a 'temporary impairement of value or usefulness' then it can be criminal damage
- What is damage? The courts approach seems to be based on whether it will cost time/money to remove the damage.
- This can be seen in the case of Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary
- 'BELONGING TO ANOTHER'
- Set out in s.10 (2)
- Similar to Theft
- Property is treated as belonging to any parson who:
- Having the custody or control of it
- Having any proprietary right or interest
- having a charge on it
- It is not restricted to the owner shown in the cases of Smith 1974 and Turner No.2
- Without lawful excuse
- The defence is allowed for CD if the D believed that:
- The owner of the property would have consented to the damage
- Case of Denton support this
- Other property was at risk and in need immediate protection - acts were reasonable in the circumstances
- If the D had another reason for doing the damage then he cannot rely on the defence, as seen in Hunt.
- Must be protecting other (of what the law defines as) property, shown by the case of Cresswell & Currie 2006
- The owner of the property would have consented to the damage
- The defence is allowed for CD if the D believed that:
- AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE
- Endangering Life is an aggravated offence of criminal damage under s 1 (2)
- Carries a max sentence of life imprisonment
- The danger to life must come from the destruction or damage, not from another source shown by the case of Steer.
- Life does not actually have to be endangered, shown by the case of Sangha
- MR: intention or recklessness in damaging the property; and intention or recklessness as to whether the life is endangered by the destruction or damage.
- Section 1 (2) also applies where the D damages his own property shown by the case of Merrick
- Endangering Life is an aggravated offence of criminal damage under s 1 (2)
- ARSON
- Found under s1 (3)
- This is committed by destroying or damaging property by fire, max sentence is life.
- In Miller it was held that arson can be committed by an omission
Comments
No comments have yet been made