Basic Criminal Damage

Question 1

The basic offence of criminal damage is set out where?

Answer 1

S1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

Question 2

What are the mens rea elements of the offence of criminal damage?

Answer 2

• destroy or damage
• property
• belonging to another

Question 3

What did the court hold in the case of Gayford v Chouler 1898?

Answer 3

That trampling down grass amounted to ‘damage’

Question 4

What does the word ‘destroy’ currently mean?

Answer 4

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

Question 5

What did the Divisional Court say about damage in the case of Roe V Kingerlee 1986?

Answer 5

That whether property had been damaged was a ‘matter of fact and degree’. The fact that money and effort had to be used in the cleaning of the cell meant that there was damage, albeit not permanent damage.

Question 6

In the Australian case of Samuels v Stubbs 1972 it was stated that damage occurs if it …

Answer 6

… ‘renders property useless, or prevents it from serving its normal function’

Question 7

The English courts’ approach to what constitutes damage is based on which three factors?

Answer 7

The time, money and effort that it will take to rectify the damage.

Question 8

What was the outcome in the case of Hardman 1986?

Answer 8

The fact that the local council had gone to the effort and expense of dispatching high-pressure water jets to remove the paint meant that the defendant was guilty of criminal damage.

Question 9

What was the outcome in the case of Blake v DPP 1993, where the defendant wrote a biblical quotation on a concrete pillar?

Which case is this similar to?

Answer 9

The defendant was found guilty of criminal damage as the quotation needed to be cleaned off.

The case was similar to Roe v Kingerlee 1986 as the cell also needed to be cleaned.

Question 10

What were the facts and outcome in the case of Fiak 2005?

Answer 10

The defendant was being held in a police cell. He stuffed a blanket into the toilet and flushed it repeatedly, thus flooding three separate cells. While the damage caused was not permanent, it required effort and time to correct the damage.

Question 11

What decision was reached in A (a juvenile) v R 1978 and why?

Answer 11

Spit which landed on a policeman’s uniform was not damage as it could have easily been wiped off with a damp cloth. No considerable effort, time or expense would be needed in order to return the uniform back to its original state.

Question 12

Which case established that the type and purpose of the property may be relevant when considering damage?

What were the facts of this case?

Answer 12

Morphitis v Salmon 1990

A scratch on a scaffolding pole was held not to amount to criminal damage. Scaffolding poles are quite likely to be scratched in their ordinary course of use and does not affect their usefulness or integrity.

Question 13

Where in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is property defined?

Answer 13

Section 10 (1)

Question 14

What does ‘property’ mean in relation to the CDA 1971?

Answer 14

Property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money, wild creatures that have been tamed or are ordinarily kept in captivity.

But, does not include mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foliage.

Question 15

Where is the definition of belonging to another set out in the CDA 1971?

Answer 15

Section 10 (2)

Question 16

How is property defined in relation to the CDA 1971?

Answer 16

10 (2) Belonging to any person-
A) having the custody or control of it,

B) having in it any proprietary right or interest, or

C) having a charge on it

Question 17

What are the mens rea elements for the basic offence of criminal damage?

Answer 17

Intention OR recklessness

Question 18

Is the basic offence of criminal damage assessed on objective recklessness or subjective recklessness?

Answer 18

Subjective recklessness

Question 19

What were the facts in the case of Pembliton 1874?

Answer 19

The defendant threw a stone at some men with whom he had been fighting with. The stone missed the men but hit and broke a window. D was not guilty of criminal damage as he had no intention of breaking a window. Under the CDA 1971, however, he may have been reckless.

Question 20

What did the case of Smith 1974 establish?

Answer 20

It established that, for the basic offence, the defendant cannot be guilty if the property he damages or destroys is his own.

Question 21

What did the case of Seray-White 2012 establish?

Answer 21

It established that if the defendant believes his act is justifiable, this is irrelevant and it is still an offence, if the act amounts to damage or destruction of property.

Question 22

What did the case of Stephenson 1979 establish about recklessness?

Answer 22

The test for recklessness is subjective. Schizophrenia may mean that the defendant does not recognise the risk posed by his actions.

Question 23

What was the outcome in the case of G and another 2003?

Answer 23

That a defendant cannot be guilty of an offence unless they had realised a risk associated with their actions and decided to take it nevertheless.

Question 24

Where are the lawful excuses for causing basic criminal damage outlined?

Answer 24

Section 5 (2)

Question 25

What are the two lawful excuses for causing criminal damage?

Answer 25

If the defendant -

A) believed that he would have had the owners consent to cause the damage, and

B) destroyed property in order to protect his own or another person’s property, while also believing -

i) the property was in need of immediate protection, and
ii) the means adopted were reasonable in the circumstances.

Question 26

Why did the defendant in the case of Denton 1982 have a defence?

Answer 26

The defendant honestly believed that his employer wanted him to set fire to the cotton mill. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction as he had a defence under s 5(2)(a); he believed that he would have the owners consent.

Question 27

What are the rules where the defendant makes a mistake because they are intoxicated?

Which case supports this?

Answer 27

In the case of Jaggard v Dickinson 1980, the defendant was found not guilty as she had an honest belief that she would have the owners consent. The fact that she was intoxicated was irrelevant.

Question 28

Is the test for whether an act was carried out for the immediate protection of property objective or subjective?

Which case highlights this?

Answer 28

The test is objective, as demonstrated by the case of Hunt 1977. In this case, the defendant lit a fire in a block of flats in order to draw attention to the fact that the fire alarm system was not working. This was not done in order to immediately protect the property, so the defendant was liable for the offence.

Question 29

What was the outcome in the case of R v Hill: R v Hunt 1988?

Answer 29

An objective test was used to establish that the acts of the defendants were too remote from their eventual aim.

Question 30

In what case was it established that God could not consent to damage?

Answer 30

Blake v DPP 1993

Question 31

Which case demonstrated that wild animals do not fall within the definition of property?

Answer 31

Cresswell and Currie v DPP 2006

Question 32

Is there a defence when property is damaged in order to protect a person?

Answer 32

No. In Baker and Wilkins 1997 the defendants tried to enter a house where they believed that Baker’s daughter was being held captive. They were convicted of causing damage to a door and their convictions were upheld.