Criminal - Criminal Damage

Question 0

Barnet London BC v Eastern Electricity Board

Answer 0

Defined “destroy”

At least elements of totality and finality
Must go further than merely a material change

Question 1

Statutes to consider

Answer 1

Criminal Damage Act

Crime and Disorder Act - if racially/religiously aggravated
Computer Misuse Act - if it involved
Criminal Attempts Act - if attempt only

Question 2

A (a juvenile)

Answer 2

Defined “Damage”

Persuasive only
Spat on waterproof coat - wiped clean, no period of inoperability, no expense.

not limited to permanent damage
Required to render article imperfect or inoperative
Issue of expenses to restore may be taken into account

Question 3

Fisher

Answer 3

Damage by removing parts (doors

Question 4

Whitely

Answer 4

Damage to electronically stored data possible
Need not be tangible or visible
Must effect value or performance of property

Question 5

Drake

Answer 5

Clamping not damage as no intrusion into the physical integrity of the vehicle.

Question 6

Smith

Answer 6

Mens rea must correspond to the actual actus reus

Question 7

Mohan

Answer 7

Test for direct intent

Question 8

Woollin

Answer 8

Test for oblique intent

Question 9

R v G

Answer 9

Subjective test for recklessness for omissions
Set fire, failed to put out, did not consider risk of spread
Must prove:
Circumstance when aware of risk that it exists or will exist OR a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur.
Awareness of unreasonableness of taking risk

Note - criminal damage is a result crime

Question 10

Chamberlain v Lindon

Answer 10

Property to protect can also consist of a right or privilege

demolished a wall blocking right of way - had a lawful excuse

Question 11

Hunt

Answer 11

Court placed limit on defence of honest belief in protection of property

Insisted action taken has the objective effect of protecting property.

(set fire at old people’s home to draw attention to defective fire alarm - not an act which in itself could protect or was capable of protecting property)

Question 12

Wang

Answer 12

If there is evidence of lawful excuse then it must be left to the jury to decide

Question 13

Parker

Answer 13

No need to prove a life was in fact endangered for intent to endanger life.

Question 14

Steer

Dudley

Answer 14

Contrast

Steer - prosecution required to prove danger to life resulted from damage to property and not from act of firing bullets at a window. Held - no intent to endanger life

Dudley - actual extent of damage caused not relevant - fire bomb extinguished in house by V. Held - intended to endanger life

Question 15

Miller

Answer 15

Responsibility theory

If fail to take steps to extinguish fire set or prevent damage to property by fire set - guilty by omission.

Question 16

AG ref compare to Elliot article

Answer 16

.

Question 17

DPP v M

Answer 17

The words “bloody foreigners” capable of being construed as racially hostile.