Criminal Damage

  • Created by: rachel
  • Created on: 14-06-14 14:05

Criminal Damage

Criminal Damage Act 1971- Criminal damage (basic offence), Aggravated criminal damage-S1(2), Arson (basic offence)- S1(3), Aggravated arson-S1(3).

The basic offence- S1(1) CDA- 'A person is guilty if he, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages property belonging to another intending or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged'.

Actus reus- destroy or damage- Roe v Kingerlee- cost money to clear the damage, does not need to be permanent damage.

A(a juvenile) v R- minimal effort in wiping away the spit. Would be damage if it stained/had to be cleaned, and effort was required.

Hardman- The cost of hiring expensive water jets meant this amounted to damage.

Blake v DPP- The time/effort it took to get rid of the graffiti from the pillars meant this counted as damage.

1 of 5

Criminal Damage 2

Morphitis v Salmon- the type, purpose and integrity of the pole had not been affected. Didn't affect the value.

Property- S10(1)- personal/real property, money, tamed animals and carcasses.

Belonging to another- S10(2)- Having custody/control, having a proprietary right or interest, having a charge on it. For the basic offence, a person cannot be guilty if the property they damage is their own.

Without lawful excuse- S5(2)- Lawful excuses- S5(2)(a)- D believes the owner would have consented.

Denton- D believed the owner wanted him to damage the mill. S5(3)- D is still able to rely on this defence even if the reason D thought V consented is because D was intoxicated.

Jaggard v Dickinson- D's actual belief that is important, if it's because he is drunk/stupid/forgets, it is still his belief.

2 of 5

Criminal Damage 3

S5(2)(b)- other property was at risk and needed protecting, and what was done was reasonable in the circumstances.

Chamberlain- Destroyed forest fires by chopping down trees- S5(2)(b).

Blake v DPP- The property was too far away, so was incapable of being protected by his actions, so did not have a lawful excuse.

Baker- The daughter did not count as property- S5(2)(b) was not accepted.

Mens rea- Intention/Recklessness as to damaging/destroying property.

Pembliton- Didn't intend to damage property, although was reckless.

G and R- Children- (test) did not realise the risk of damage. (Could also use Woollin test).

3 of 5

Criminal Damage 4

Aggravated Criminal Damage- S1(2) C.D.A 1971- 'A person will be guilty if he, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another- a) intention/recklessness as to destroying/damaging property.  b) intention/reckless by the destruction/damage to endanger life or another.

Belonging to another- Can be the defendant's property.

Intention/recklessness as to endangering the life of another- D only needs to intend/be reckless about this- does not need to actually put another's life in danger.

Sangha- Reckless about endangering life (even though it wasn't possible).

By the damage/destruction of property- MUST come from the damage of property, rather than D's acts.

Steer- D must have intended/been reckless as to the danger to life coming from the damage (damage here came from D's acts).

4 of 5

Criminal Damage 5

Wenton- The danger to life came from the petrol canister (D's act), smashing the window did not amount to A.C.D.

Arson- S1(3) C.D.A 1971- destroying/damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.

All elements of S1(1) or S1(2) still apply. Only additional element is that the damage must be caused by fire.

Aggravated arson- can be arson contrary to S1(1) and S1(3)- basic arson offence, or S1(2) and S1(3)- aggravated arson offence.

Miller- can be carried out through omission.

The defence of lawful excuse under S5 can only be used under the basic offence of arson, not the aggravated. (Same with criminal damage).

5 of 5


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »