Case Law The Basic Offence

Section 1(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 be reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence

1 of 19

Actus Reus of The Basic Offence

Destroy or Damage; Property; Belonging to Another

2 of 19

Mens Rea of The Basic Offence

Intention or Recklessness as to cause Damage or Destroy Property Belonging to Another Without Lawful Excuse

3 of 19

Gayford v Chouler

Even slight damage is sufficient to prove damage i.e. trampling grass

4 of 19

Destroy

'Destroy' is a much stronger than 'damage' and it includes where the property has been made useless even though it is not completely destroyed

5 of 19

Roe v Kingerlee

The courts' approach is based on whether it will cost money, time and/or effort to remove the damage

6 of 19

Fiak

The 'temporary impairment of value or usefulness' is the key factor

7 of 19

A (a juvenile) v R

If there are no costs or effort in cleaning up, and the property can continue to be used then there is unlikely to be an offence

8 of 19

Morphitis v Salmon

Damage in line with everyday use that does not affect their usefulness or integrity is unlikely to be held as damage - a scratch on a scaffolding pole

9 of 19

Section 10(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 Property

'Property' means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money. It includes wild creatures which have been tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity, as well as other wild creatures or their carcasses if they are possessed

10 of 19

Section 10(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 Belonging to Another

Property is treated as belonging to any person: 1) Having the custody or control of it; or 2) Having in it any proprietary right or interest; or 3) Having a charge on it

11 of 19

Pembliton

Proving the act is not enough, there must be an intention to do the damage

12 of 19

Smith

Honest belief, whether justifiable or not, that the property is the D's own negates the element of mens rea

13 of 19

Gemmell and Richards (G and R)

Recklessness for the purposes of the mens rea of criminal damage mens the D must have been aware of the risk of damage occurring. It is a Subjective Test

14 of 19

Section 5 The two lawful excuses - They apply where the D honestly believes either that:

a) The owner (or another person with rights in the property) would have consented to the damage; or b) other property was at risk and in need of immediate protection and what he did was reasonable in all the circumstances

15 of 19

Denton

If the D believes that his employer encouraged him to destroy property; this is a belief of consent

16 of 19

Jaggard v Dickinson

Section 5(3) allows for an unjustified mistake as long as it is honestly held, this allows for intoxication, stupidity, forgetfulness and inattention

17 of 19

Cresswell and Currie

Wild badgers are not 'property' to protect under s5(2)(b)

18 of 19

Baker and Wilkins

The protection of persons is not included under s5(2)(a) and s5(2)(b)

19 of 19

Get Revising

Case Law The Basic Offence

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources: