Criminal Damage

Criminal Damage is defined under Section 1(1) of the criminal damage act 1971 as a person without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another with intentioness or recklessness to do so.

Damage or destroy is not defined under the act but is interpreted by the courts as a question of fact or degree, including the temporary or permanent harm caused to the property. With the reduction of the usefullness and value.

In Fiak (2005):

Held this was criminal damage as both the blanket and toilet iccured to be fixed.

In Morphitis V Salmon:

Held the scratched scaffold pole did not reduce its usefullness or value.

Property is defined under the criminal damage act 1971 section 10 (1) as all property with a tangible retire, whether real or personal.

Belonging to another is defined under Section 10(2) as a person with custody and control, any proprierty right of interest and charge of the property.

In Merrick: 

Held the damage endangered life even though the property belonged to the defendant

Is defined under section 5(2) as a person can legally damage property if:

1) the owner would have consented

2) The property was at risk and in need of immediate protection and the defendant only did what he thought was reasonable.

In Blake v DPP:

Held the defendant claimed he had a lawful excuse:

1) God Consented

2) Property was at risk in Irac

Both failed.

The defendant must endanger life through the damage of property and not from any other source in which the damage was caused.

In Webster (1975):

Held the damage from the train roof endangered the lifes of the passengers.

The defendant must have the intention or recklessness to endanger life through the damage caused.

In Gammel and Richards (2003)

Held the defendants were reckless as they were aware that a risk existed in the circumstances and it was unreasonable to take the risk but they did so regardless.

The defendant must have intention or recklessness to damage the property