Criminal Damage

?

Criminal Damage

Criminal Damage is set out in S1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

'A person without lawful excuse destroys or damages property belonging to another with intention to destroy or damage the property or be reckless'.

Actus Reus:

* Destroy/Damage

* Property

* Belonging to another

Destroy is not defined in the act but means property has been made useless, and damage is covered by a wide range of cases:

* Roe V Kingerlee = smeared mud on police cells which cost £7 to remove, this was held Damage even though it was not permanent

* Hardman V CC Avon = Defendant argued the damage was temporary, and there was no need for council to use expense, but court held this was damage

1 of 4

Criminal Damage

* If there is no cost, or effort involved in cleaning up, and the property can still be used there will be no offence ( A Juvenile V R)

Property:

Property is defined in S10(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1971.

Property can be real (land), personal, tangible, money. For criminal damage, intangible property cannot be damaged or stolen, for example copyright or tickets for a concert. With criminal damage property such as murhsrooms growing wild or wild plants is not property.

Belonging to Another:

Belonging to another is set out in S10(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1971. Property shall be said as belonging to another for anyone having custody/control of it, having the right or interest, or having charge of it. (Smith). Cant be guilty if the property you damage/destroy is your own.

2 of 4

Mens Rea:

Defendant must have the intention to destroy or damage property belonging to another or be reckless

Intention = (Pemblinton) - not guilty as the intention could not be transferred from person to property

Recklessness = This is where the defendant knew there was a risk but decided to take the risk, and they realised the risk of damage (Gemmell & Richards) (Subjective Test)

Without Lawful Excuse:

* Without lawful excuse is stated in S5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1971, and there are two types of lawful excuse

1. If the defendant believed that the person would of consented, the owner would of consented (Denton)

2. If the defendant did the act in order to protect property belonging to himself or another that he believed... the property was at risk and in need of immediate protection and what the defendant did was reasonable in those circumstances

3 of 4

Intoxicated Mistake

If the defendant has another purpose in doing damage, and there act was not done in order to protect property which needed protection then the defence is not available. (Hunt) - the act was not done in order to protect property that was in immediate need of protection.

A defence can also be made even when the defendant makes a mistake when intoxicated (Jaggard & Richards) - conviction was quashed as a honest belief is enough even when the defendant is intoxicated.

For property needing protection the defendant cannot cause criminal damage to something which is not considered to be property. In (Creswell & Curine) - badgers did not belomg to another and was not in the custody and control of the DEFRA

4 of 4

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar All resources:

See all All resources »See all xxxxxxxx resources »