Back to quiz

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

  • True
  • False