Chapter 12 - Criminal Damage

Question 1

What are the four offenses of criminal damage?

Answer 1

Simple criminal damage, arson, aggravated criminal damage, and aggravated arson.

Question 2

What is criminal damage?

Answer 2

Criminal damage is when someone destroys or damages property that belongs to another person.

Question 3

Is criminal damage a common offense?

Answer 3

Yes, criminal damage is one of the more common offenses, and it can range from petty offenses like graffiti to serious offenses like riots.

Question 4

What is the definition of simple criminal damage?

Answer 4

Simple criminal damage occurs when a person, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged.

Question 5

What are the three elements of actus reus for simple criminal damage?

Answer 5

1. damage or destruction;
2. of property;
3. belonging to another

Question 6

What does ‘destroy or damage’ mean?

Answer 6

It includes physical harm, whether permanent or temporary, as well as the impairment of the value or usefulness of property.

Question 7

Provide some examples of the destruction or damage of property

Answer 7

Destruction could be the demolition of a building or the burning of crops. Damage might include removing a part from a machine, drawing on a pavement with soluble chalk, or pushing a vase off a pedestal, causing it to smash.

Question 8

Does spitting on a police officer’s raincoat constitute criminal damage?

Answer 8

No, in the case of A (a juvenile) v R , the court held that this did not constitute criminal damage because the faint mark could be wiped away.

Question 9

What does ‘property’ mean?

Answer 9

Property for the purposes of the CDA 1971 is defined as property of a tangible nature, including real property like land and buildings, and personal property including money.

Question 10

Are animals and plants considered property?

Answer 10

It depends on the circumstances, mainly whether the item is wild or not. Tamed animals or those usually kept in captivity and plants that are being cultivated are considered property.

Question 11

Can a person commit criminal damage against their own property?

Answer 11

No, for simple criminal damage, the property that is damaged or destroyed must belong to another.

Question 12

What does ‘belonging to another’ mean?

Answer 12

This includes having custody or control of the property, having any proprietary right or interest in it, or having a charge on it.

Question 13

Can a person be liable for criminal damage on a house they own?

Answer 13

No, unless they own the house subject to a mortgage, in which case the lender has a charge and proprietary interest in the house.

Question 14

If someone scribbles on a library book that their friend borrowed, who does the book belong to?

Answer 14

The friend has custody or control of the book because they are in possession of it, but the library owns the book and has a proprietary right to it.

Question 15

What is the mens rea of criminal damage?

Answer 15

The defendant must: (a) intend to damage or destroy property or be reckless as to such damage or destruction; and (b) know that the property belongs to another or be reckless as to whether the property belongs to another.

Question 16

Is recklessness in criminal damage subjective or objective?

Answer 16

The test for recklessness in criminal damage is subjective, meaning the accused will be judged on the basis of their own state of mind.

Question 17

How did the case of R v G change the test for recklessness?

Answer 17

In this case, two boys aged 11 and 12 set fire to some newspapers, which spread and damaged a shop. The House of Lords amended the law to make the test for recklessness subjective, and the boys were found not guilty because they didn’t appreciate the risk of damaging property.

Question 18

Does a mistaken belief about property ownership negate mens rea?

Answer 18

If the defendant honestly believes that the property is their own, they will lack the mens rea of criminal damage

Question 19

Does the belief about property ownership have to be reasonable?

Answer 19

No, it does not matter if the belief is reasonably held, as long as it is an honest belief.

Question 20

What happened in the case of R v Smith ?

Answer 20

A tenant damaged fixtures in a property, mistakenly believing they belonged to him. His conviction was quashed because the court held that an honest belief that property is one’s own negates the mens rea.

Question 21

What is lawful excuse in the context of criminal damage?

Answer 21

Lawful excuse means there is a legally valid reason for damaging or destroying property.

Question 22

Where are the two situations where a defendant has a lawful excuse outlined?

Answer 22

They are outlined in s 5 of the CDA 1971.

Question 23

Do the statutory lawful excuses apply to aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 23

No, they only apply to simple criminal damage and arson.

Question 24

What is the first lawful excuse for criminal damage?

Answer 24

Belief in consent. The defendant believed they had the consent of the person entitled to give permission, or believed they would have had consent if the person knew of the damage and circumstances.

Question 25

Can a mistaken belief about consent be a lawful excuse?

Answer 25

Yes, as long as the belief is honestly held, even if it is mistaken.

Question 26

What happened in Jaggard v Dickinson ?

Answer 26

The defendant broke a window to get into a house she mistakenly thought belonged to a friend. Because she was drunk, she entered the wrong house. The defendant was still able to rely on lawful excuse because her belief in consent was honestly held.

Question 27

What did the Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023 clarify about lawful excuse based on belief in consent?

Answer 27

The Court of Appeal clarified that the ‘circumstances’ considered for lawful excuse must be directly linked to the damage. This could include the time, place, and extent of the damage, or even that the damage was part of a protest. However, it does not include the defendant’s political or philosophical beliefs.

Question 28

What is the second lawful excuse for criminal damage?

Answer 28

Need of protection. The defendant believed property was in immediate need of protection and the means of protection were reasonable.

Question 29

Provide an example of a situation where the ‘need of protection’ lawful excuse might apply.

Answer 29

Farzana sees her cat locked in a neighbor’s car on a hot day. To protect her cat, she smashes the car window to free it.

Question 30

In lawful excuse based on the need for protection, what is the two-stage process for determining if the defendant’s purpose was protection?

Answer 30

• (a) The court must be satisfied that the accused honestly believed their action was protecting, or was capable of protecting, property (subjective test).
• (b) The court will rule as a matter of law whether the defendant’s purpose amounts to protecting property (objective test).

Question 31

What happened in the case of R v Hunt ?

Answer 31

The defendant set fire to a room in a care home to draw attention to a defective fire alarm. He failed the ‘purpose’ test because the court did not agree that his action was capable of protecting property.

Question 32

What happened in the case of R v Hill and Hall ?

Answer 32

Members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament cut a fence surrounding a US naval base. They argued they were protecting nearby properties from potential nuclear fallout, but the judge found that this action was too remote from protecting property.

Question 33

What is the immediacy requirement for lawful excuse based on protection of property?

Answer 33

The defendant must honestly believe that the property was in immediate need of protection.

Question 34

What happened in Johnson v DPP ?

Answer 34

A squatter changed the lock on a disused house to protect his possessions. His argument of lawful excuse failed because there was no evidence that the house was in immediate need of protection. The future risk of theft was not sufficient to meet the immediacy requirement.

Question 35

Is the reasonableness of the means of protection used subjective or objective?

Answer 35

It is a subjective test. The defendant must honestly believe that the damage or destruction they caused was a reasonable means of protection.

Question 36

Summarize the elements of lawful excuse.

Answer 36

• s 5(2)(a): Honest belief in the owner’s consent - subjective.
• s 5(2)(b): Protection of property
  Was the defendant’s purpose the protection of property? - objective.
  If yes, did the defendant honestly believe: the property was in immediate need of protection; and the means adopted were reasonable? - subjective.

Question 37

What is the key takeaway from Attorney General’s Reference No 1 of 2022 ?

Answer 37

The European Convention on Human Rights does not provide protection to those who cause criminal damage during protests that are violent or not peaceful.

Question 38

What is aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 38

Aggravated criminal damage occurs when a person destroys or damages property, intending or being reckless as to whether the destruction or damage endangers the life of another.

Question 39

What are the two main differences between simple criminal damage and aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 39

• In simple criminal damage, the property must belong to another person, while in aggravated criminal damage the property can belong to the defendant or another person.
• Aggravated criminal damage includes an additional element of mens rea - the intention or recklessness as to endangering the life of another.

Question 40

Does someone’s life have to be endangered for them to be guilty of aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 40

No, because the focus is on the defendant’s mens rea. If the defendant intended or was reckless as to endangering life, they can be guilty even if no one’s life was actually put in danger.

Question 41

What was the outcome of the case of R v Dudley ?

Answer 41

The defendant threw a firebomb at a house, causing minimal damage. Despite the lack of serious damage, his conviction for aggravated criminal damage was upheld because he intended to endanger life at the time he threw the firebomb.

Question 42

What is the key principle established in R v Steer ?

Answer 42

For aggravated criminal damage, the endangerment of life must arise from the damage to the property itself, not from the act that caused the damage.

Question 43

If someone rips out copper wires from a signal box, potentially endangering engineers and passengers, what offense could they be guilty of?

Answer 43

Aggravated criminal damage, because their actions demonstrate recklessness as to endangering life.

Question 44

Does the lawful excuse defined in s 5 of the CDA 1971 apply to the aggravated offense of criminal damage?

Answer 44

No, the definition of lawful excuse in s 5 does not apply to offenses under s 1(2).

Question 45

Are there any circumstances where a defendant might have lawful excuse for aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 45

Yes, outside of s 5, lawful excuse might apply in situations of preventing crime or self-defense.

Question 46

Explain how lawful excuse could apply to a situation involving self-defense.

Answer 46

For example, if someone is threatened with a knife and smashes a glass into the face of their assailant, they could argue lawful excuse (if the force used was reasonable) because the damage was done to defend themselves and prevent crime.

Question 47

What are the elements of simple arson?

Answer 47

Simple arson involves intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another by fire.

Question 48

What are the elements of aggravated arson?

Answer 48

Aggravated arson involves intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another by fire, with the intention or recklessness as to endangering life.

Question 49

Marta breaks her grandmother’s window to get into the house after seeing her grandmother lying on the floor with a smoldering cigarette. Is she guilty of an offense?

Answer 49

Marta is liable for simple criminal damage under s 1(1) of the CDA 1971 because she intentionally damaged her grandmother’s window. However, she is able to rely on the defense of lawful excuse under s 5(2)(a) and potentially s 5(2)(b) because she believed her grandmother would have consented if she knew of the circumstances and because she acted to protect the house from burning down.

Question 50

14-year-old Bear lights candles in his friend’s bedroom, accidentally setting the curtains on fire and causing significant damage. What offense(s) could he be guilty of?

Answer 50

Bear is liable for arson because he recklessly damaged his friend’s bedroom by fire. However, it’s unlikely that he would be found liable for aggravated arson because there’s no evidence he was aware of the risk of endangering life.