Crimes Against Property Flashcards
what are the two types of malicious mischief
- traditional definition
- ‘wilson’ malicious mischief
does the crown need to prove malice in the crime?
no
what is the definition of ‘traditional mischief’
intentional or reckless damage to another property without consent
what is the case authority for traditional mischief?
Ward v Rovertson 1938, charge of damaging crops. Mens rea not satisfied no evidence of intention.
what is the mens rea and actus rea of traditional mischief
actus reus- the actual damage to property
mens rea- the intention or recklessness
what is property defined as under traditional mischief
only corporal things
what case challenged the definition provided under traditional mischief
HMA v WIlson 1984
What was the new type mischief known as ‘Wilson mischief’ defined as
“Deliberate interference with property causing economic loss”
What happened in the case of HMA v Wilson 1984
man activated emergency stop button at a power plant causing an economic loss of £147,000
what is not sufficient to charge someone for under Wilson mischief?
carelessness
where is the statutory crime of vandalism found
in the Criminal Law (consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995
what is vandalism defined as
“any person who without reasonable excuse wilfully or recklessly destroys or damages property belonging to another is guilty of vandalism”
What is the difference between vandalism and malicious mischief?
Vandalism requires proof of physical damage and allows for reasonable excuse, where as malicious mischief is the opposite
what is the significance of the Black v Allan 1985 case with regards to vandalism
crown failed to prove the accused act had caused damage
what is the importance of the MacDougal v HO case with regards to vandalism?
accused contended was reasonable excuse and the crown failed to disprove it
