Criminal - Criminal Damage

Question 1

Simple Criminal Damage - Actus Rea

Answer 1

s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act

1) Destroys or Damages - Common sense approach - consider whether there has been any expense in restoration (Sammuels v Stubbs)
2) Property - anything tangible, real or personal, including money, property etc. (s.10(1) CDA)
3) Belonging to another - Property will belong to another if that person has custody, control, a proprietary right, interest or a charge on it (s.10(2) CDA)

Question 2

Simple Criminal Damage - Mens Rea

Answer 2

1) Intention or Recklessness to destroy or damage property
- either direct (Moloney) or indirect intent (Nedrick/Woollin)
- Recklessness (R v G)

2) D knows or is reckless as to whether the property belongs to another - D will not be liable if honestly believed property belonged to himself (R v Smith)

Question 3

Simple Criminal Damage - Defence

Answer 3

Defence of LAWFUL EXCUSE can be established if there is either permission or the act was done to protect the property (s.5(2) CDA)

1) Permission (s.5(2)(a))
a) D believed he had / would have had consent from the person whi was capable of giving permission / person D believed was capable of giving permission.
b) even if fraudulent (R v Denton)

2) Protection (s.5(2)(b))
a) D believed the property (his own or others) was in immediate need of protection; and
b) D believed the means of protection were reasonable having regard to the circumstances.

N.B. Defence of lawful excuse has been successful even when based on voluntary intoxication, despite criminal damage being a basic intent crime (Jaggard v Dickinson).

Question 4

Aggravated Criminal Damage - Actus Reus

Answer 4

1) Destroys or damages

2) Property - Anything tangible, real or personal, including money, property etc. (s.10(1) CDA)

Question 5

Aggravated Criminal Damage - Mens Rea

Answer 5

1) Intention or recklessness to destroy or damage property.
- Either direct (Moloney) or indirect intent (Nedrick/Woollin)
- Recklessness: (Cunningham)

2) Intention or recklessness as to ENDANGERING LIFE OF ANOTHER (by the damage).
- Life doesn’t actually have to be endangered (R v Sangha)
- The endangerment to life must be from the damage / destruction itself (R v Steer).

Question 6

Aggravated Criminal Damage - Defences

Answer 6

Defence of lawful excuse doesn’t apply. General defences may apply (e.g. Self-defence / prevention of crime)

Question 7

Arson

Answer 7

Simple Arson - same as simple criminal damage - AR insert “by fire”

Aggravated Arson - Same as Aggravated Criminal Damage - AR insert “by fire”.

Question 8

Threats to destroy or damage property

Answer 8

AR:

1) Threatening another
- to destroy/damage property belonging to that other or third person
- To destroy / damage his own property in a way that he knows is likely to endanger life of that other or third person.

2) without lawful excuse

MR:
Intention that person who is threatened would fear it will be carried out.

Defence: Lawful excuse and other general defences

Question 9

Possession with intent to destroy or damage property

Answer 9

AR: D has something in his custody or under his control

MR: Intention to use it or permit another to use it

• to damage or destroy property belonging to another
• to damage or destroy his own or uses property to endanger life of another

Defence: Lawful excuse and other general defences.