Arson Flashcards
Arson - Danger to life
Section 267 (1) (a) CA1961
- intentionally or recklessly
- damages by fire or damages by means of explosive
- any property
- if he or she knows or ought to know that danger to life is likely to ensue
“Ought to know” subjective and objective test applies.
Arson - vehicle/immovable property - no interest
Section 267 (1) (b)
- intentionally or recklessly
- without claim of right
Damages by fire or damages by means of explosive - any immovable property or vehicle or ship or aircraft
- in which that person has no interest
Arson - cause loss/obtain benefit
Section 267 (1) (c) CA1961
- Intentionally
- damages by fire or by means of any explosive
- any immovable property or vehicle or ship or aircraft
- with intent
- to obtain any benefit or cause loss to any other person
Notes - Likely to be financial in nature.
Not always necessary that the victims loss needs to result in benefit for the offender.
Arson - subsection (2)
- Intentionally or recklessly
- without claim of right
- damages by fire or by means of any explosive
- any property
- in which that person has no interest (267 (2) (a) ) / with intent to obtain any benefit or intent to cause loss to any other person (267 (2) (b) )
Notes:
Lesser charge (7 years). Better suited to movable property like bins etc.
Arson - subsection 3
- intentionally
- damages by fire or means of any explosive
- any property
- with reckless disregard for the safety of any other property
Notes:
Less charge - 5 years. Could relate to bonfires that in turn damage property. Also use Cameron v R or R v Tipple to assist in the reckless aspect.
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
(i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or
(ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable
R v Tipple
Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires “a deliberate decision to run the risk”.
Note:
More deliberate than Cameron v R. Could relate to incidents like fleeing drivers.
R v Morley
Loss…is assessed by the extent to which the complainants position prior to the [offence] has been committed diminished or impaired.
Note:
Relates to criminality only arising from direct loss (at the time). Things like expectation loss or loss of anticipated future profits aren’t included. For example, arson of classic vehicle. Might appreciate over time, but this can’t be calculated in the loss to the victim (anticipated future profits)
Section 2 Interpretation of vehicle, ship and aircraft.
Vehicle -
(a) means of contrivance equipped with wheels, tracks or revolving runners on which it moves or is moved; and (b) includes a hovercraft, a skateboard, in-line skates, and roller skates; but (c) doesn’t include perambulator, pushchair, shopping or sports trundler not propelled by mechanical power, wheelbarrow or hand trolley, pedestrian-controlled lawnmower, pedestrian-controlled agricultural machine not propelled by mechanical power, article of furniture, a wheelchair not propelled by mechanical power, any other contrivance specified for the purpose of this definition, any rail vehicle.
Ship -
Vessel used in navigation, however propelled;and includes any barge, lighter, dinghy, raft, or like vessel; and also includes any ship belonging to or used as a ship of the armed forces of any country
Aircraft -
Same as civil aviation act 1990 - any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air otherwise than by the reactions of the air against the surface of the ear
Interpretation of claim of right
Means a belief at the time of the act in proprietary or possessory right in property in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
Notes:
Can include intangible property that cant be possessed but may be owned.
R v Smith
Common sense requires that ‘danger to life’ should be interpreted as “danger to the life of some person other than the setter of the fire”
Note: ie must relate to a third party. Risk of life can’t be to the person setting the fire.
Define immovable property
Not defined in CA1961 but generally relates to buildings and land and things growing on land, such as forests.
Mainly things that are fixed in place and unable to be moved, even though with some effort (ie jacking up a house) could be moved.
Define ‘know or ought to know’
Two part test - subjective and objective
Subjective - what was defendant thinking at the time. Did they know action would put others in danger?
If subjective test not proven then…
Objective - would a reasonable person have thought the same in the circumstances. Would a reasonable person have recognised the risk.
Definition of explosive.
Substance or mixture or combination of substances which in its normal state is capable of decomposition at such rapid rate as to result in an explosion or producing a pyrotechnic effect.
Includes gunpowder, dynamite etc etc etc.
Note:
Definition doesn’t limit to para b and doesn’t apply to fireworks defined in a separate section.
Definition of Fire
Process of combustion - Chemical reaction between fuel and oxygen, triggered by heat.
