Basic Criminal Damage Flashcards
The basic offence of criminal damage is set out where?
S1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
What are the mens rea elements of the offence of criminal damage?
- destroy or damage
- property
- belonging to another
What did the court hold in the case of Gayford v Chouler 1898?
That trampling down grass amounted to ‘damage’
What does the word ‘destroy’ currently mean?
Destroy is a much stronger word than damage, but includes where the property has been made useless even though it is not completely destroyed
What did the Divisional Court say about damage in the case of Roe V Kingerlee 1986?
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.
In the Australian case of Samuels v Stubbs 1972 it was stated that damage occurs if it …
… ‘renders property useless, or prevents it from serving its normal function’
The English courts’ approach to what constitutes damage is based on which three factors?
The time, money and effort that it will take to rectify the damage.
What was the outcome in the case of Hardman 1986?
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.
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?
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.
What were the facts and outcome in the case of Fiak 2005?
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.
What decision was reached in A (a juvenile) v R 1978 and why?
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.
Which case established that the type and purpose of the property may be relevant when considering damage?
What were the facts of this case?
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.
Where in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is property defined?
Section 10 (1)
What does ‘property’ mean in relation to the CDA 1971?
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.
Where is the definition of belonging to another set out in the CDA 1971?
Section 10 (2)
How is property defined in relation to the CDA 1971?
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
What are the mens rea elements for the basic offence of criminal damage?
Intention OR recklessness
Is the basic offence of criminal damage assessed on objective recklessness or subjective recklessness?
Subjective recklessness
What were the facts in the case of Pembliton 1874?
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.
What did the case of Smith 1974 establish?
It established that, for the basic offence, the defendant cannot be guilty if the property he damages or destroys is his own.
What did the case of Seray-White 2012 establish?
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.
What did the case of Stephenson 1979 establish about recklessness?
The test for recklessness is subjective. Schizophrenia may mean that the defendant does not recognise the risk posed by his actions.
What was the outcome in the case of G and another 2003?
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.
Where are the lawful excuses for causing basic criminal damage outlined?
Section 5 (2)
