Criminal Damage S 1 (1)
- Created by: une-meduse
- Created on: 11-05-13 16:12
View mindmap
- Criminal Damage
- Property 10 (1) Criminal Damage Act 1971
- Belonging to Another 10 (2) Criminal Damage Act 1971
- Smith
- Belonging to another is not restricted to the owner, however for the basic offence a person can not be guilty if he destroys or damages his own property
- Smith
- Mens Rea
- Gemmel v Richards
- Recklessness in S1 is clearly subjective in it's meaning
- Pembleton
- There must be intention to destroy or damage the property belonging to another, proving the act is not enough, pembleton intended to throw the stone, but did not intend to damage the window
- Smith
- You must intent to damage property 'belonging to another' - an honest belief that the property is his/her own negates mens rea
- Gemmel v Richards
- Lawful Excuse S 5 (2)
- Consent S 5 (2) (a)
- Denton
- The defendant thought he had the owners consent to setting the fire therefore he had a defence
- Denton
- Other property was at risk S 5 (2) (b)
- Creswell and Currie
- In order for the defence to succeed the item that D is trying to protect must be property - the badgers had not yet been reduced into possession
- Hunt
- To allow a defence under S 2 (b) the act must be done to protect property that is in immediate need of protection
- Blake
- The act done must be capable of protecting property - so writing on a post in England would not protect property in the Gulf
- Creswell and Currie
- Mistake S 5 (2) (a) and S 5 (3)
- Jaggard V Dickingson
- The defence of mistake may be used even when the defendant's mistake is a result of intoxication, stupidity, forgetfulness or inattention
- Jaggard V Dickingson
- Consent S 5 (2) (a)
Comments
No comments have yet been made