Criminal Damage

Question 1

What year is the legislation of Criminal Damage

Answer 1

1971

Question 2

Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

Either way offence:
- on summary, if property damage under £5000: six months imprisonment and/or fine;
- on indictment: ten years imprisonment

Answer 2

A person

a. without lawful excuse
b. destroys or damages
c. any property belonging to another
d. Intending to destroy or damage such property or
e. Being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged

shall be guilty of an offence under Section 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971

Question 3

Criminal Damage Endangering Life: Section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

Indictable offence: life imprisonment

Answer 3

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—

(a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and

(b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;

Shall be guilty of an offence.

To prove: there is no requirement for the offender to try and kill someone or for an actual injury/harm to occur.
- Only necessity to prove that the damage was caused intentionally or recklessly AND there was potential for another to be harmed as a result of the damage being caused.

Question 4

Arson: Section 1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

Either way offence:
- on summary: six month’s imprisonment and/or fine
- on indictment: up to life imprisonment

Answer 4

An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.

To convict: At least some of the damage must have been caused by fire; and prove there was intent or an element of recklessness in relation to the use of fire.

Question 5

Threats to Destroy or Damage property: Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

Either way offence:
- on summary: six months imprisonment and/or fine
- on indictment: ten years imprisonment

Answer 5

A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out,—

(A) To destroy or damage any property belonging to that other or a third person; or

(B) To destroy or damage his own property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of that other or third person;

Shall be guilty.

E.g. if a person, enraged by a neighbour’s inconsiderate parking, shouts over the garden wall, “When you’ve gone to bed, I am going to T-cut that heap with paint stripers!’, the offence will be complete, provided you can show that the person making the threat intended the neighbour to fear it would be carried out.

Question 6

Having Articles with Intent to Destroy or Damage Property: Section 3 Criminal Damage Act 1971

Either way offence:
- on summary: six months imprisonment and/or fine
- on indictment: ten years imprisonment

Answer 6

A person who has anything in his custody or under his control intending without lawful excuse to use it or cause or permit another to use it—

(a) to destroy or damage any property belonging to some other person; or

(b) to destroy or damage his own or the user’s property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of some other person;

Shall e guilty of an offence.

Question 7

Give an example of defence around protection in relation to Criminal Damage.

Answer 7

: You live in a block of flats. Water comes rushing down your walls from your neighbour’s flat upstairs. The neighbour has left a tap running however is on holiday for 2 weeks and has not left a spare key with anyone.

You would be protected by the protection defence if you damaged the front door to gain entry as you did so in order to protect property belonging to yourself and another (your neighbour).

Both properties were in immediate need of protection. The means were reasonable in the circumstances as there was no spare key available and access could only be gained by breaking the door.

Question 8

What is Aggravated Criminal Damage?

Answer 8

Aggravated criminal damage is where property has been destroyed or damaged with the aggravating factor that life is endangered by the destruction or damage to the property.

Question 9

Give an example of aggravated criminal damage

Answer 9

A jealous husband cuts the brake pipe of his rivals car. No harm may actually come to the intended victim, however the potential for harm exists.

Question 10

There are 5 things to consider when deciding if a person has committed the offence of possessing anything with intent to destroy or damage property or endanger life. What are they?

Answer 10

1. Was the item in the persons custody or control?
2. Did they intend to use it, or allow another to use it, to cause damage to property?
3. Did the property belong to another?
4. Did they have no lawful excuse?
5. If the property belonged to themselves, or the user, did they intend to use it, or cause or permit another to use it, in a way which they knew was likely to endanger the life of another?

Question 11

Lawful Excuse

Answer 11

1. Believes they own or have consent to damage property
2. Believes that he/she would have permission from the owner of the property to cause the damage (if the person able to consent would have known the full facts; e.g. a recovery operator authorised by the owner to load the car onto a recovery vehicle, damages the car in the process)
3. Believes that his/her own or another’s property was in immediate need of protection by reasonable means

Question 12

Damaged or destroyed

Answer 12

Destroy = leaving the article beyond repair

Damaged = harmed, made less useful, valuable, unworkable or just defaced (It does not need to be permanent)

Examples of damaging property could include:
- A street artist using water-soluble paints to paint on pavement.
- Smearing graffiti with mud.
- Flooding a cell by stuffing a blanket into a toilet and repeatedly flushing.

Question 13

Property

Answer 13

Property must be of a tangible nature, ‘something real’:

• land and things forming part of the land: real estate; wild animals in captivity;
• personal items: including money.

Question 14

Belonging to another

Answer 14

Another has:
- custody
- control
- a right
- an interest
- charge of the property

Proprietary rights or interests and charge could be wider than the owner and include anyone who has an interest or responsibility.

Question 15

Intending to damage or destroy such property

Answer 15

Transferred malice is applicable -> it does not matter if the property damaged is not the property intended.

E.g. A stone thrown at a neighbour’s car but hits the car of a different neighbour.

Question 16

Reckless

Answer 16

An act which creates an obvious risk that property would be destroyed or damaged

And when the person commits the act, he either gives no thought to the possibility of there being any such risk

Or having recognised that there was some risk involved nevertheless goes on to commit the act.

Question 17

Question 1: SILVER is an artist and he uses chalk to draw pictures on the pavement which is owned by the local authority. The picture could easily be washed off using water.

Could this be sufficient damage for an offence contrary to Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer 17

A. No, as the pictures are not permanent.
B. No, as the pictures could easily be washed off.
C. Yes, as the damage need not be permanent.
D. Yes, but only if SILVER intended to cause permanent damage.

Answer C

Question 18

Question 2: ASHBY is employed as a digger driver. He attends an address to dig up a driveway in preparation for the laying of block paving. ASHBY starts to dig up the driveway but, due to an admin error, he has been given the wrong address. He causes considerable damage.

Which of the following is correct when considering the offence of criminal damage contrary to Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer 18

A. ASHBY commits the offence as he was careless as to whether the property was damaged or destroyed.

B. ASHBY does not commit the offence because at the time he believed he had consent to damage or destroy the property.

C. ASHBY does not commit the offence because at the time of the damage he was acting on the instructions of his employer.

D. ASHBY commits the offence because he was negligent as to whether or not he had consent to damage the property.

Answer B

Question 19

Question 3: GREY has a dispute with her neighbour, EDMUNDS, about their property. One day, she receives a letter from EDMUNDS’ solicitor informing her that they intend to commence legal proceedings.
GREY is furious and marches over to EDMUNDS’ house and tells him that she would break the windows on his wive’s car that night when they are both asleep. GREY does not intend to carry out the damage but hopes EDMUNDS believes she will.

Which of the following is true under these circumstances in relation to an offence of threatening to destroy or damage property contrary to Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer 19

A. The offence is not committed, as GREY never intended to carry out the damage.

B. The offence is committed; it is irrelevant whether EDMUNDS was put in fear of his window being broken.

C. The offence is not committed, as EDMUNDS is not the owner of the car.

D. The offence is committed because the damage that is threatened is imminent.

Answer B

Question 20

Question 4: TAYLOR is in the park with EVANS. TAYLOR has a spray can in his hand intending to spray graffiti on a wall and he tells EVANS of his intentions. A uniformed police officer enters the park and, without EVANS seeing or knowing, TAYLOR puts the spray can into EVANS’ rucksack.

Who, if anyone, commits the offence of possessing articles with intent to destroy or damage property contrary to Section 3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer 20

A. EVANS only.
B. TAYLOR only.
C. Both.
D. Neither.

Answer B