Criminal Damage

?

Introduction

Outlined in Criminal Damage Act 1971: Sets out 3 Offences:

  • s1(1) - Basic criminal damage
  • s1(2) - Aggravated criminal damage
  • s1(3) - Criminal damage by arson 
1 of 18

Basic Criminal Damage

s1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - 'a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damages shall be guilty of an offence'

  • D = guilty of criminal damage if he intentionally or recklessly destroys or damages property belonging to another without lawful excuse

AR

  • Destroy or damage
  • Property
  • Belonging to another
2 of 18

Destroy or Damage

Example Cases (pre-1971 - persuasive precedent)

Gayford v Chouler (1898) (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/8iE/bRq/8iEbRqEyT.jpg)

  • D crossed V's field from one footpath to another despite V telling him not to
  • Grass = knee high so D trampled + damaged it
  • Held: grass had small value but value nonetheless - constituted damage
    • trampling grass, or any vegetation = damage
    • slight damage can satisfy element of 'damage'

Roper v Knott (1898) (http://www.bathkandy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/milk.jpg)

  • D watered down four gallons of milk
  • Held: damage does not have to render the property totally useless.
    • value of property -> impaired = amounts to damage
3 of 18

Destroy or Damage Cont

Morphitis v Salmon (1990)

  • D scratched scaffold bar
  • scratch on metal scaffolding bar not criminal damage 
    • did not impair its usefulness or value and the value of the property must be impaired to amount to crim dam

R v Fiak (2005)

  • D caused his prison cell to flood
  • D argued that water on waterproof floor + wet blanket was not criminal damage
  • Held: blanket + cell = damaged as they could not be used until dried
    • the damage can be temporary - no need for it to be permanent

Blake v DPP (1993)

  • D wrote biblical quotation on concrete pillar in protest against Gulf War, claiming to have consent of God
  • pillar needed cleaning -> cost incurred -> damage. 
4 of 18

Destroy or Damage Cont

Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon (1986) (http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/102838.jpg) (http://previews.123rf.com/images/lineartestpilot/lineartestpilot1401/lineartestpilot140100497/24798945-cartoon-spray-can-Stock-Vector.jpg)

  • D drew pictures on pavement w/water soluble paint which would have washed away a few days later
  • Council arranged to have it cleaned before that anyway
  • Unnecessary costs still amount to damage

Miller

  • tramp set fire to matress case
  • Destroying or damage can be committed by omission

Roe v Kingerlee (1986) (http://images.clipartpanda.com/puddle-clipart-splash-md.png)

  • D smeared mud on police station cell wall - cost £7 to clean
  • Held: whether D's actions -> criminal damage = question of fact + degree for magistrates (or judges), aplying common sense, to decide
5 of 18

Property

Definition - s10(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971

  • Property = tangible property only, covering
    • Real property - land + buildings
    • Personal property
    • Money
6 of 18

Belonging to Another

  • s10(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - property = belonging to another having
    • (a) custody or control of it
    • (b) a proprietary right or interest in it
    • (c) a charge on it (a legal right to a property, like a proprietary right)
  • Can be committed against jointly owned property

Smith (1974)

  • D damaged what he believed was his own property
  • Held: Conviction quashed: not possible to cause basic criminal damage to one's own property
7 of 18

Mens Rea

Intention

  • D must intend to destroy/damage property

Seray-White (2012)

  • D wrote on two parking notices. D said he didn't intend to cause damage
  • Appeal dismissed - D intended to do the writing

Pembilton (1874)

  • D threw stone into crowd - missed + broke window instead
  • D not guilty of the offence - he had not intended to damage the window

Recklessness

  • D foresees a risk of harm but nevertheless goes ahead with his actions anyway
8 of 18

Without Lawful Excuse

  • s5(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - two lawful excuses which could provide a defence - only available for basic offence
    • (a) if at the time of the act ... he believed that the person or persons whome he believed to be entitled to consent ot the destruction of or damage to the property ... had consented, or would have consented ... if they had known of the ... circumstances; or
    • (b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question ... in order to protect property ... and at the time of the act ... he believed - 
      • (i) that the property ... was in immediate need of protection; and
      • (ii) that the means of protection adopted ... were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances
        • NOTE: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER A BELIEF IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT IF IT IS HONESTLY HELD
  • This means that D either believes that:
    • the owner(s) did or would have consented to the damage OR
    • the damage was necessary in order to protect the property
  • D's belief need not be reasonable; it need only be honest and genuine
9 of 18

Belief in Consent

Denton (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/2/4/4/1/12065706041192134415nicubunu_RPG_map_symbols_Windmill.svg.hi.png) (http://www.how-to-draw-cartoons-online.com/image-files/xcartoon_fire.gif.pagespeed.ic.kGjMFMU4lx.png)

  • D worked at cotton mill + set fire to machinary there
  • Claimed owner had given consent, as he had hinted it would be good if he could make an insurance claim from out-of-action machinary
  • Conviction quashed - no requirement that person entitled to consent was honest. D's belief was honest

Blake - God told him to write on a pillar case

  • Held: 1) God cannot consent to damage 2) the act was not capable of protecting property in the Gulf States - too remote

Jaggard v Dickinson (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/9/d/C/4/O/O/beer-bottle-hi.png)

  • D broke into house under drunken mistake that it belonged to a friend
  • Conviction quahsed: subjective element (D's actual, honest belief) -> an intoxicated mistake = sufficient provided D's belief is honest
10 of 18

Belief that Property = in Immediate need of Protec

Hunt

  • D helped wife (warden of block of old people flats
  • D set fire to bedding -> testing fire alarm
  • This defence not allowed
    • failed to act in order to protect property in immediate need of protection
    • Defence unavailable because D had another reason for doing the damage
      • Also seen in Blake

Cresswell and Currie 

  • Ds = against badger culling
  • Ds destroyed DEFRA traps meant for trapping badgers
  • Defence unavailable - badgers = wild animals (not property)
    • D must be protecting property for defence to be successful
11 of 18

Aggravated Criminal Damage

s1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - 'a person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property whether belonging to himself or another

  • (a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and 
  • (b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered

shall be guilty of an offence'

12 of 18

Danger to Life

  • Danger to life must come from the destruction or damage, rather than from another source

Steer (1987) (http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/cartoon-gun-10687804.jpg)

  • D fired gun at V's home, causing damage to the house
  • Conviction quashed - danger came from gunshots, not from the damage done by them

Webster (1995) 

  • Ds pushed large stone over bridge onto train below. Stone hit roof of one coach + debris covered passengers
  • Stone itself did not fall into the carriage
  • CA quashed conviction: substitued intention for recklessness
13 of 18

Danger to Life Cont

Warwick (http://www.makeyourownfacemask.co.uk/shop/product_images/r/753/warwick_davis_face_mask__15690__68522_zoom.jpg) (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/4/1/3/2/1333485059718224959Red%20Building%20Brick.svg.hi.png) (http://www.clipartlord.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/police-car4.png)

  • D rammed police car + threw bricks -> rear window smashed + showered officers w/broken glass
  • Conviction upheld: If D throws brick at windscreen of moving vehicle + causes some damage to vehicle, being guilty not dependent on whether brick hits or misses
    • being liable is dependent on whether D intended to hit it + intended/was reckless to that the damage should endanger life
14 of 18

Life not Actually Endangered

  • No lives actually have to be endangered

Sangha (1988)

  • D set fire to neighbour's flat. It was empty at the time + no people at risk
  • Used Caldwell (objective) recklessness test and the reasonable man would not have known that it was empty, so D was guilty
    • This has been overruled by Gemmell and Richards and the test is now subjective
15 of 18

Own Property

s1(2) applies to both other people's property and D's own property

Merrick (1995)

  • Employed by householder to rmove some old TV cable
  • D left live cable exposed for a few minutes but nobody was hurt
  • D charged w/endangering life because of the 'damage' to the wiring
  • Conviction upheld by CA
  • In this case, Merrick was used as a contractor by householder, but there is no reason that this would not apply to the householder himself if he were to do this himself
    • Second flaw: damge only occured because he was removing some cable and had to leave wiring exposed. It would not be criminal damage if he was laying down new cable
16 of 18

MR

  • Intention/recklessness as to destroying or damaging property and
  • Intention or recklessness as to whether the life is endangered by destruction or damage

Cooper (2004)

  • D lived in hostelf for people needing mental illness support
  • D set fire to matress but there was no serious damage
  • Police asked D whether he thought people could have been hurt
    • D replied 'I don't think, it did cross my mind a bit but nobody would have got hurt'
  • D charged w/arson + being reckless as to whether life would be endangered
  • Trial judge convicted following Caldwell but conviction was quashed when CA ruled Caldwell test no longer appropriate + recklessness became subjective
17 of 18

Arson

  • s1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971 covers arson
  • Only deviation from s1(1) basic criminal damage is that the destruction/damage must be caused by fire
  • P must prove D intended or was reckless as to whether life was endangered by the damage or destruction by fire
  • Miller - arson could be committed by an omission
18 of 18

Comments

lIxXIlEpIcCoOlDuDeLeArNeRlIXxIl

Report

!omg! good flash card !omg!

lIxXIlEpIcCoOlDuDeLeArNeRlIXxIl

Report

my wife left me and these revision

cards right me

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Theft resources »