6. Belonging to another is defined under S 10 (2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
True
False
7. S 5 (2) (b) provides a defence where other property is in immediate need of protection
True
False, consent is under S 5 (2) (b)
8. Property is defined in S 10 (2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
False
True
9. S 5 (3) combined with s 5 (2) (a) allows a defence of mistake to be used, even where the mistake is a result of intoxication, stupidity, forgetfulness or inattention
True
False
10. The legal rule resulting from Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon is that non permanent damage can come within the definition of damage, and money, time and effort in removing the damage is a key factor
True
False it was Morphitis v Salmon
False it was Denton
False it was Gemmel v Richards
False it was Hunt
11. Roe v Kingerlee said: 'whether property has been damaged is a matter of fact and degree'
False it was Blake v DPP
False it was Morphitus v Salmon
False it was Fiak
True
False it was A (a juvenile) v R
False it was Hardman v Chief Constable
12. The two lawful excuses are consent and intoxication
False
True
13. Hardman v Chief Constable wrote a biblical quotation on a concrete pillar, which needed to be cleaned off so it was held to be criminal damage
False it was Pembleton
False it was Smith 1974
False it was Blake v DPP
False it was Morphitis v Salmon
False it was A (a juvenile) v R
True
False it was Fiak
14. The temporary imapairment of value and usefulness was the key factor in Fiak, as the towel had to be washed and the cell cleaned, but there was no permanent damage.
True
False
15. In Jaggard v Dickinson, the defenant's conviction was quashed as she broke into a 'friend's' house due to an intoxicated mistake, under s 5 (3) and s 5 (2) (a) combined
True
False
16. The two lawful excuses are 'consent' s 5 (2) (b) and 'risk to other property' s 5 (2) (a)
False
True
17. The belief that other property was in need of protection does not need to be immediate
True, there has never been an immediacy requirement for s 5 (2) (b)
False, in Hunt the defence under s 5 (2) (b) was refused as his act was not done in order to protect property in immediate need of protection
True, in Hunt the defence under s 5 (2) (b) was allowed as the immediacy rule is not strictly applied
18. The mens rea of the basic offence requires the defendant to be negligent
False the defendant does not require the mens rea to be guilty
False, the defendant must do the damage either intentionally or recklessly
True
False, objective recklessness must be proven
19. In Blake v DPP, the defendant wrote a biblical quotation on a concrete pillar, which needed to be cleaned off and was therefore damage.
True
False
20. A (a juvenile) v R spat on a policeman. This was held not to be damage as it could be wiped off with minimal effort