Criminal Damage

BASIC CD S1(1) CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971, BASIC ARSON S1(1) AND (3)

DESTROY OR DAMAGE = MATTER OF FACT FOR JURY USING COMMON SENSE (ROE v KINGERLEE), TYPE AND PURPOSE OF PROPERTY MAY BE RELEVANT (MORPHITIS v SALMON), EXPENSE AND EFFORT TO REPAIR IS SIGNIFICANT (HARDMAN)

PROPERTY = S10 - LAND AND ALL TANGIBLE PROPERTY INCLUDES MONEY

BELONGING TO ANOTHER = CUSTODY OR CONTROL, PROPRIETARY RIGHT OR INTERST OR CHARGE OVER IT

WITHOUT LAWFUL EXCUSE = TWO SITUATIONS CONSTITUTE A LAWFUL EXCUSE

INTENTION OR RECKLESSNESS AS TO DESTROYING OR DAMAGING PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER

NO MR IF D HONESTLY BELIEVES PROPERTY BELONGS TO THEMSELF (SMITH) 

S5(3) - DOESN'T MATTER IF BELIEF JUSTIFIED AS LONG AS HONESTLY HELD

S5(2)(a) - HONESTLY BELIEVES OWNER WOULD HAVE CONSENTED HAD THEY KNOWN THE FACTS, EVEN IF MISTAKEN WHEN INTOXICATED (JAGGARD v DICKINSON) BELIEVES SOMEONE HAS AUTHORITY TO TELL THEM TO COMMIT DAMAGE (DENTON)

S5(2)(b) - DAMAGES PROPERTY BELIEVING OTHER PROPERTY IN IMMEDIATE NEED OF PROTECTION, PROVIDED METHODS USED WERE OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE IN CIRCUMSTANCES (WHAT JURY THINK) (HILL & HALL)

AGGRAVATED CD - S1(2) CDA 1971, AGGRAVATED ARSON - S1(2) AND (3)

AR = DESTROY OR DAMAGES PROPERTY BELONGING TO D OR ANOTHER WITHOUT LAWFUL EXCUSE (NO LAWFUL EXCUSE DEFENCES) INTENDING OR RECKLESS AS TO ENDANGERING THE LIFE OF ANOTHER

DANGER MUST COME FROM THE DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE OF PROPERTY, NOT REQUIRED FOR LIFE TO ACTUALLY BE IN DANGER (SANGHA) 

MR = INTENTION OR RECKLESSNESS AT TO THE DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE OF PROPERTY AND INTENTION OR RECKLESSNESS AS TO ENDANGERING THE LIFE OF ANOTHER BY THAT DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE (STEER)