Criminal Damage Defences
- Created by: natalie..law
- Created on: 14-04-16 17:36
View mindmap
- Defences to Criminal Damage
- Lawful Excuse (s.5)
- both simple and aggravated arson constituted only where D acted without lawful excuse
- S.5 provides 2 statutory excuses/justifications for CD simple (not aggravated)
- No CD if believes at the time of CD that person in charge would have consented (S.5(2)(a)
- Denton
- D bears evidential burden (Hill and Hall [1989])
- belief needed that owner would consent not that the act is immoral
- Denton
- No CD if committed to protect own property/right/interest in property he believes he holds
- needs to believe that property is in immediate need of protection and...
- ...and means of protection adopted were/would be reasonable in circumstance
- D could destroy another's house to prevent fire spreading to engulf his property (Cope v Sharpe [1912])
- ...and means of protection adopted were/would be reasonable in circumstance
- s.5(2)(b) more expansive than common law - allows action to be taken to protect property interests/rights as well as substance
- Chamberlain v Lindon (1977) - holder of a right of way not guilty of CD by demolishing wall blocking his right of way - not necessary that D had exhausted all other possible remedies (like court action)
- no requirement that action taken be objectively necessary, its enough that D believed the property, right/interest was in need of protection and that the means he adopted were reasonable in the circumstances (Jones and Others [2004])
- Hunt (1977) - set fire to bed to show fire alarms not working - held CD - did not commit damage to protect his own property
- Hill and Hall [1989] parameter fence of US naval base - said that CD was to encourage removal of the base and prevent harm to their properties in future
- CA held that action was not to protect their homes but to remove the naval base
- Whilst property-protecting may have been their main aim, it was not the aim behind the wire cutting
- Blake v DPP [1993]
- Also - no immediate danger to their property
- Whilst property-protecting may have been their main aim, it was not the aim behind the wire cutting
- CA held that action was not to protect their homes but to remove the naval base
- Hill and Hall [1989] parameter fence of US naval base - said that CD was to encourage removal of the base and prevent harm to their properties in future
- Hunt (1977) - set fire to bed to show fire alarms not working - held CD - did not commit damage to protect his own property
- no requirement that action taken be objectively necessary, its enough that D believed the property, right/interest was in need of protection and that the means he adopted were reasonable in the circumstances (Jones and Others [2004])
- Chamberlain v Lindon (1977) - holder of a right of way not guilty of CD by demolishing wall blocking his right of way - not necessary that D had exhausted all other possible remedies (like court action)
- needs to believe that property is in immediate need of protection and...
- No CD is acts under duress/duress of circumstances, necessity of self-defence
- e.g. After a party A is trapped in house with all doors locks, breaks window to escape - commits CD with mens rea - no liability - necessity
- necessity justifies action reasonably taken as an act of self-preservation, where consequence is an inevitable and unavoidable side-effect of that act
- not necessary to show, as it is with duress of circumstances that the threat to be avoided was of immediate death or serious injury
- e.g. A fights with E in a car park and tries to ram her car, E attempting to escape smashes through the barrier, narrowly missing C
- simple CD (not aggravated) lawful excuse? self-defence --> force has to be directed against the aggressor, force is used for purpose of escaping the threat, not for meeting it
- force is against barrier and is reasonable and necessary - should be recognised as self-defence cf. Lloyd v DPP where it was held that damaging a wheel-clam to free an encumbered car was not a lawful excuse
- simple CD (not aggravated) lawful excuse? self-defence --> force has to be directed against the aggressor, force is used for purpose of escaping the threat, not for meeting it
- necessity justifies action reasonably taken as an act of self-preservation, where consequence is an inevitable and unavoidable side-effect of that act
- e.g. After a party A is trapped in house with all doors locks, breaks window to escape - commits CD with mens rea - no liability - necessity
- both simple and aggravated arson constituted only where D acted without lawful excuse
- Lawful Excuse (s.5)
- Mens Rea
- No need for belief to be justified as long as it is honestly held s.5(3)
- even mistakes induced by drink could be relied upon
- Jaggard v Dickinson (D broke into neighbour's house thinking whilst drunk was her friends
- “the court is required by s5(3) to focus on the existence of the belief, not its intellectual soundness; and a belief can be just as much honestly held if it is induced by intoxication as if it stems from stupidity, forgetfulness or inattention” as per Mustill J
- NB. Jaggard not followed in Magee v CPS (2014)
- limits to mistaken beliefs - Blake v DPP (1993) - vicar + HoP, protesting ag. war and nuclear weapons - CD to HoP in belief that he had consent of person who should authorise it - God - rejected
- Jaggard v Dickinson (D broke into neighbour's house thinking whilst drunk was her friends
- even mistakes induced by drink could be relied upon
- No need for belief to be justified as long as it is honestly held s.5(3)
Comments
No comments have yet been made