Criminal damage Flashcards
Who is Nick Flyn?
- Criminal damage when he tripped over shoelaces and fell into vases worth £300,000 in 2016
- Released without charge because it was an accident
What does S1(1) and S1(2) of the Criminal Damage act 1971 say?
S1(1) - Person without lawful excuse destroys of damages any property belonging to another intending or being reckless to destroy or damage that property
S1(2)- Aggravated criminal damage where someone has intended or been reckless by causing the damage to endanger someones life
What is the max sentence for criminal damage?
- 10 years
What is the max sentence for aggravated criminal damage?
- Max life
What determines where the case is heard?
- The cost accumulated
If the damage is less than £5000 where would the case be heard?
- In the magistrates as it would be a summary offence
Where would the case be heard if the damage is more than £5000?
- It is an either way offence so can be heard by jury or magistrates at the choice of the D
- Who, and why would somebody argue they have made more damage than is been accused?
- Campaigners often would prefer to be heard by the jury as they have more chance of case discharge
What does S10 of the criminal Damage Act 1971 define?
- What Property is
When is someone deemed to have damaged property?
- If it permanently or temporarily impairs the value or usefulness of the property
Gayford and Chouler 1898
- D walked across field of knee deep grass trampling it
- Claimed he did not damage to the land itself
- COA rejected appeal and he was convicted of criminal damage
A v R 1978
- Football supported spat at a police officer who was wearing a raincoat which apparently needed dry cleaning
- Was arrested for criminal damage
- COA agreed no damage was done and the raincoat could have been wiped with a damp cloth, this is what it was made for
Hardman v CC 1986
- D had painted human silhouettes onto pavement to campaign for nuclear disarming after the Hiroshima bomb
- Appealed claiming it was easily removed but the expense in doing so by the council caused the conviction to be upheld
- Has Owner incurred expense in restoring property?
- Objective test as the magistrate or jury decide
What is the controversy with banksy and graffiti?
- The boundary between criminal damage and artistic expression is unclear
- Some of Banksy’s work actually increased the value of property
Roe v Kingerlee 1986
- Man in police cell smeared mud over walls costing £7 to remove
- Magistrates dismissed this claiming there was no real damage
- On appeal from the prosecution the COA just stressed it is a decision for the fact finder and no them
R v Fiak 2005
- Man pushed blanket down cell toilet, flooding cell.
- He appealed as he said it would have dried out
- COA said damage includes permanent or TEMPORARY impairment of value or usefulness and so dismissed appeal
- Objective test as the magistrate or jury decide
What does S5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 say?
- Defines without lawful excuse
- Says someone will have a defence if at the time they believed the property owner would have consented if they had known of the damage and its circumstances
What did the Law commissions 1970 report say?
- That the subjective test as set out in Cunningham 1957 could be applied to criminal damage
Stephenson 1979
- Further reinforced that the subjective approach from Cunningham was appropriate
- Homeless man crawled into haystack to keep warm and lit a fire
- Destroyed the hay and a nearby building with equipment in
- He had a long history of schizophrenia so did not see the possible danger
- TJ misdirected the jury away from the subjective test and so on appeal his convicted was quashed
MPC v Caldwell 1981
- HOL redefined meaning of recklessness and it then took 22 years for the redefinition to be corrected
- Caldwell was convicted of aggravated damage
- He got drunk and set fire to a persons hotel who he did not like but it was extinguished before much damage could be done
- HOL ‘intoxication is no defence to a crime in which reckless is enough to constitute the necessary MR’
- Therefore this test changed the reckless used in criminal damage to an objective test
R v G 2003
- TJ was bound by Caldwell
- 2 Boys entered back of a coop and lit newspapers and threw them under wheely bins which spread to coop causing over £1 million damage
- COA rejected the appeal and it went to HOL who quashed the conviction and changed back to a
subjective test - A person acts recklessly within the meaning of S1 CDA 1971 with respect to
1- Circumstances where he is aware of a risk that exists or will exist
2- A result when he is aware of a risk that is will occur
Elliot v C 1983
- 14 Year girl who was low on intelligence entered shed and lit fire to white spirit to keep warm
- £3000 damage
- She did not appreciate the risks but precedent from Caldwell had to be followed so she was convicted after the prosecution appealed TJ decision
What did Lord Bingham say when discussing overturning Caldwell?
- It is not clearly blameworthy to do something involving a risk of injury to another if one genuinely does not perceive the risk
What are the criticisms of the question of recklessness being subjective to the individual?
- There is no benefit for property owners
- ## No real deterrent ( but then objective would not be a deterrent because they had no idea what they were doing would be damaging)
