Arson Flashcards
Arson - sections, case law (8)
s267, 14, 10, 7, 5 years
R v Taisalika
R v Collister
Cameron v R
R v Tipple
Simester & Brookbanks
R v Wilson
Morley v R
R v Archer
Arson - someone dies in a house fire.
s267(1)(a)
14yrs
Intentionally/Recklessly
Damages by fire/means of explosive
Any property
If he knows/ought to have known that danger to life would ensue.
Arson - damages a business/house/vehicle/tree that he did not own.
s267(1)(b)
14yrs
Intentionally/Recklessly
Without claim of right
Damages by fire/means of explosive
Any immovable property/vehicle/a-s
In which that person has no interest.
Arson - damages a business/house/vehicle for for insurance.
s267(1)(c)
14yrs
Intentionally
Damages by fire/means of explosive
Any immovable property/vehicle/a-s
With intent to obtain a benefit/cause loss to any other person.
Arson - attempts to burn down a house/vehicle/ship/aircraft.
s268
10yrs
Attempts to
Commit arson
in respect of any immovable property/vehicle/ship/aircraft.
Intent
An act/omission done deliberately, must be more than involuntary or accidental.
Requires 2 intents: intent to
- commit the act
- achieve a specific result
R v Taisalika
R v Collister
R v Taisalika
Intent can be inferred from the nature of the blow and the injury/gash itself.
R v Collister
Intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, eg actions, words, surrounding circumstances, nature of the act.
Recklessly
Case law
Tests
A conscious/deliberate running of a risk AND the risk was unreasonable to take in the circumstances known to the offender.
Cameron v R
R v Tipple
Subjective test: what did the Defendant KNOW?
Objective test:
Cameron v R - Recklessness
Recklessness is established when it can be shown that:
- the Defendant recognised that there was a REAL (not just significant) POSSIBILITY that the actions would bring about the result AND
- the circumstances existed AND
- having regard to that risk, the actions were unreasonable.
R v Tipple - Recklessness
Recklessness is established when it can be shown that:
- the Defendant knows/had a conscious appreciation of the risk AND
- makes a deliberate decision to run that risk.
Knowing
Case law
Tests
Being free from doubt, believing.
Simester & Brookbanks - knowing is correctly believing.
Subjective test: what did the Defendant KNOW?
Objective test:
Simester & Brookbanks
Knowing is correctly believing.
Danger to life
Human life
Danger must be to someone other than the setter.
Interest
A level of right of ownership.
R v Wilson
R v Wilson
Tenancy of a property constitutes an interest.
Benefit
Benefit, pecuniary advantage, privilege, property, service, valuable consideration.
Loss
Eg financial detriment.
Morley v R
Morley v R
Loss must be directly related to the offence (deception case). Loss can’t be indirect, eg a loss of anticipated profit.
Property
Real and personal property, any interest in any real property, money, electricity, debt
Immovable property
Fixed in place, unable to be moved - although it may be possible.
Eg: house, forrest, land, vehicles.
Explosive
gunpowder, nitroglycerine, flares, fog signals, fuses , cartridges, ammunition
Fire
Any incendiary device eg fireworks, firearms, Molotov cocktail , petrol bomb
Damaged (by fire)
Reduction in usefulness or value. In relation to fire, includes burning, charring, melting, blistering of paint, smoke damage.
Must prove that it was damaged and that it was damaged by the fire.
R v Archer
R v Archer
Permanent or temporary physical harm or impairment of use or value.
Eg soot that can be washed off.
Claim of right
A defence!
Belief at the time of the act in a proprietary/possessory right in the property.
May be based on ignorance/a mistaken fact.
