Chapter 14: Criminal Damage

Question 1

What are the 3 criminal damage acts

Answer 1

1. Section 1(1) CDA 1971 - simple criminal damage
2. Section 1(2) CDA 1971 -aggravated criminal damage
3. Section 1(3) CDA 1971 - criminal damage by fire (arson)

Question 2

What is the sentencing for Section 1(1) CDA 1971 – Simple CD

Answer 2

Setencing can be max 10 years

Question 3

What are the 3 elements for Section 1(1) CDA 1971

Answer 3

1. Actus reus
2. Mens rea
3. Without lawful excuse (inherent defence)

Question 4

What are the 3 ARs for Section 1(1) CDA 1971

Answer 4

1. destroy or damage
2. to property
3. belonging to another

Question 5

What constitutes ‘destroy’ or ‘damage’?

Answer 5

Destroy

• If a particular property cannot be utilised any more

Damage

• If a particular property which is said to be damaged could be remedied to its original state

Question 6

What are the 3 cases for destory or damage for Section 1(1) CDA 1971

Answer 6

Cox v Riley [1986]

• Whether property is destroyed or damaged is a question of fact or degree (depends on type of property. Could be physical harm, whether permanent or temporary, and the permanent or impairment of the value or usefulness of the property

‘A’ (A Juvenile) v R [1978]

• Whether the owner was put under expense to clean the mess or to repair the damage so that the subject matter can be restored to its original or usefulness of the property

Morphitis v Salmon [1990]

• A scratch to a scaffold bar could not constitute damage as it involved no impairment of its value or usefulness since scratching was a normal incident of scaffolding components

Question 7

What is the provision under the CDA 1971, for the definition of property

Answer 7

Section 10 (1) of the CDA 1971

• Land
• Money - Cash or shillings/coins (cheque’s don’t count)
• Tamed animals
• Wild Animals (Ordinarily kept in captivity, or reduced into possession or their carcasses close)
• Not including mushrooms growing wild on land or flowers comma fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land
• ‘Mushroom’ including any funguses and any ‘plant’ includes any shrub or tree
• Any property of tangible nature as such it does not therefore cover, for example intellectual property
• It must be noted that land can be damaged unlike in the law or theft where it cannot be stolen

Question 8

What is the definition of ‘belonging to another’ under Section 10(2)

Answer 8

• Someone who is having custody or control;
• Someone having proprietary right; or
• Someone having a charge on it

Question 9

What are the 2 mens rea that need to be satisfied for criminal damage?

Answer 9

1. Intention or recklessness
2. Without lawful excuse

Question 10

What is the intention for MR. What are the 2 cases for it?

Answer 10

1. Must be direct intent, but can also be foreseeability of risk (virtual certainty) - (R v Woolin; R v Nedrick)
2. Defendant mistakenly believed that the property he damaged or destroyed was his own. Which would negate MR (R v Smith (David))

Question 11

What is the recklessness for MR. What is the case for it?

Answer 11

Recklessness is decided subjectively (R v G & Another [2003])

• Whether the defendant themselves foresaw the risk

Question 12

What are the 2 types of lawful excuses?

Answer 12

Statutory defences
General defences

Question 13

What are the statutory defences for lawful excuses?

Answer 13

Section 5(2)(a) - Defendant believes he has a ‘lawful excuse’ where:

• The defendant believe that the person entitled to consent to a dead destruction or damaging the property and so consented; or
• Would have consented if he had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstance

Section 5(2)(b) - The defendant destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage in order to protect property belonging to himself or another, as he believed:

• Property was in immediate need of protections; and
• The means of protection adopted was reasonable in the circumstance

Question 14

What are the cases for Section 5(2)(a)

Answer 14

Jaggard v Dickinson [1980]

• Facts - Where the D really honestly thought he had gotten consent, although being drunk
• Held - D’s belief was honestly held regardless of whether or not it was reasonable

Blake v DPP

• Facts - D thought carried out actions according to God’s instructions
• Held - Consent had to have come from an actual person

Question 15

What are the cases for Section 5(2)(b)

Answer 15

1. R v Hill and Hall [1989] - D believed he needed to protect himself (R v Hunt), in which destroying the destroying or damaging the property
2. Johnson v DPP [1994]
3. R v Jones & Others [2004]

Question 16

What are the 3 elements to satisfy in Section 1(2) CDA 1971- Aggravated CD

Answer 16

1. Actus reus
2. Mens rea
3. Without lawful excuse

Question 17

What is the AR in Section 1(2) CDA 1971?

Answer 17

Everything thing is the same.Except the only diffrence is

• Property destroyed or damaged, need not belong to another

Question 18

What is the MR in Section 1(2) CDA 1971

Answer 18

Defendant must intend to damage or destroy property or be reckless thereto (intent).

In addition, the defendant must intend by that damage to endanger life or be reckless (ulterior intent)

Question 19

What are the cases for MR for Section 1(2)

Answer 19

• R v Steer [1987] 2 All ER 833
• R v Webster & Others [1995]
• R v Warwick [1995]
• R v Dudley [1989]
• R v Wenton (Luke) [2010]
• R v Harris [2013] EWCA Crim. 233

Question 20

R v Steer [1987] 2 All ER 833

Answer 20

Facts

1. D fired shots at house of business partner
2. Windows shattered but occupants were unhurt
3. It was not evident that the shots were intended at the occupants
4. Charged for criminal damage being reckless as to whether life would be endangered
5. Appeal on the basis that the danger was caused by the firing of the gun, and not the glass

Held

1. Not liable
2. HOL upheld that the damage to life must result from the damage to or destruction of propert. Therefore, the D must intend the damage to endanger life or be reckless as to whether it does

Question 21

R v Webster & Others [1995]

Answer 21

Held - That under Section 1(2)(b) is that the prosecution must prove that the danger to life resulted from the destruction of or damage to property, and that not sufficient/wrong for the prosecution to prove that the danger to life was the D’s act instead

Question 22

R v Warwick [1995]

Answer 22

• If the D intended that the stone itself (D’s actions) would crash through the roof of the train and thereby directly injuring the passengers or was reckless whether it did would not apply
• But if he intended that the stone would smash through the roof so that the material from it would or might descend upon the passengers or was reckless whether it did, then it would constitute as ulterior intent crime
  1. D was guilty of an offence under the section

Question 23

what is Section 1(3) CDA 1971

Answer 23

criminal damage by fire (arson)

Question 24

What is the sentencing for arson?

Answer 24

Max life imprisonment

Question 25

What are the 3 elements for Section 1(3) CDA 1971

Answer 25

1. AR
2. MR
3. Without lawful excuse

Question 26

What is the AR, MR, and lawful excuses for Section 1(3) CDA 1971?

Answer 26

Either borrow provision from section 1(1), or borrow from section 1(2).

But keep in mind, the borrowing provisions can vary. But the charging provision is fixed (max life imprisonment)