Criminal Damage

Question 1

What is Section 1(1) - Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer 1

Criminal Damage (Basic Offence)

Question 2

What is Section 1 (2) - Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer 2

Aggravated Criminal Damage

Question 3

What is Section 1(3) - Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer 3

Arson & Aggravated Arson

Question 4

What is Section 2 - Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer 4

Threats to Destroy or Damage Property

Question 5

What is Section 3 - Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer 5

Having Articles with Intent to Destroy or Damage Property

Question 6

What are the points to prove for Section 1(1) Criminal Damage

Answer 6

• Without lawful excuse
• Destroy/Damage
• Property to value of
• Intending to
• Destroy/Damage such property or
• Being reckless whether it was destroyed/damaged

Question 7

Does the damage need to be permanent?

Answer 7

No, here is no need for the damage to be permanent, it can be temporary

Question 8

What is one of the definitions of what damage is?

Answer 8

To make something less useful than it was

Question 9

When can property be regarded as ‘destroyed’?

Answer 9

If it has been rendered ‘useless’

Question 10

What is subjectively recklessness?

Answer 10

Knowing the risk but nevertheless takes the risk

Question 11

What types of offence is Criminal Damage under Section 1(1)?

Answer 11

Triable either way – if the value of the property damaged is less than £5000 – the offence will be tried SUMMARILY in Magistrate’s Court

Question 12

What is Section 30(1) - Crime & Disorder Act 1998?

Answer 12

Racially or Religiously Aggravated Criminal Damage

Question 13

What are the 7 points to prove for Aggravated Criminal Damage?

Answer 13

• Without lawful excuse
• Destroy/Damage
• Property
• Whether belonging to self or another
• With intent to destroy/damage or recklessly destroy/damage
• Intending by destruction/damage to endanger life of another or
• Being reckless as to whether such life would thereby be endangered

Question 14

What are the 5 points to prove for Arson?

Answer 14

• Without lawful excuse
• Destroy/Damage
• By fire
• Property with intent to destroy/damage
• Being reckless whether such property was destroyed/damaged

Question 15

What is aggravated arson?

Answer 15

Arson, but with the intent to endanger life or being reckless as to whether such life would be endangered.

Question 16

What are the 4 points to prove for threats to destroy or damage property?

Answer 16

• Without lawful excuse
• Threatened to destroy/damage property of a person
• Intending
• A person would fear that the threat would be carried out

Question 17

For the aggravated criminal damage offence under Section 1(2), does the property have to ‘belong to another’?

Answer 17

No

Question 18

In relation to Section 1(2) of the Act who may have ‘lawful excuse’?

Answer 18

Section 1(2) involves the danger to life and there cannot be any lawful excuse for destroying or damaging property when life may be endangered.

Question 19

Evidentially, how are you going to prove someone’s ‘intent’?

Answer 19

Admission by defendant, circumstances of the offence, witnesses, defendant’s actions, threats made, proving the defendant’s state of mind at the time of committing the offence is important

Question 20

In relation to Section 1(2) of the Act does a person have to be ‘harmed’…why?

Answer 20

No, no injury is actually required; the defendant must intend or be subjectively reckless as to the damage being caused and the risk of endangering the life of another.

Question 21

Subjectively reckless requires 2 parts, in simple terms, what are they?

Answer 21

1) They knew there was a risk.
2) They took the risk anyway.

Question 22

In relation to Section 2 of the Act (threats to cause damage) whose ‘intention’ matters?

Answer 22

The prosecution must show that the suspect intended that the other person feared that the threat would be carried out.

Question 23

How can ‘threats’ be made?

Answer 23

• Verbally
• Written
• Text
• Letter

Question 24

Does the damage need to be permanent?

Answer 24

No, it can be temporary. Street artists using chalk on pavements. Tyres being let down.

Question 25

Do threats have to be directed at the victim?

Answer 25

No, they can be directed at a third person.

Question 26

‘Belonging to another’ means more than just the owner who generally has ‘custody or control’ of it. Name 2 other possible owners in law?

Answer 26

1) Someone who has a ‘proprietary right or interest’ in it or
2) A ‘charge’ on it.

Question 27

In relation to Section 3 of the Act (articles) what is meant by ‘anything’?
Name 5 things

Answer 27

• Explosives
• Hammer
• Brick
• Knife
• Spray can
• Paint

Question 28

Does the offender have to have the ‘article’ in their physical possession?

Answer 28

No – can also be custody or control – you must prove that the suspect intended to use the item or allow another to use the item to cause damage to property.

Question 29

There are 4 offences under Sec 1 collectively. Simple Criminal Damage, aggravated damage, arson and aggravated arson. Which ones, if any, are ‘indictable only’?

Answer 29

Aggravated damage and aggravated arson.

Question 30

There are 2 specific defences in addition to the General Defences, what are they? Which offences do they NOT apply to?

Answer 30

Consent and Protection
Sec 1(2) aggravated damage endangering life, Sec 1(3) arson endangering life, Sec 2 threats endangering life, Sec 3 having articles endangering life

Question 31

Scenario: There have been numerous problems between John and his neighbour Sally. He tells her that if she parks her car outside his house again, he will slash its tyres. John has no intention of carrying out this threat. Sally, however, is frightened by what he says

Q: On these facts alone, has John completed the offence or is there something else the prosecution would need to prove?

Answer 31

The offence is not yet complete; the prosecution would still need to prove that he intended her to fear that the damage would be carried out. Her fear is good evidentially but it’s not the point that needs proving

Question 32

Scenario: Taylor owns a property which has recently been taken over by squatters. One afternoon he goes to the property with a petrol can and a lighter. He sets the property alight but made no attempt to see if they were there. Fortunately, the squatters had gone out for the day

Q: Have any offences been committed under the 1971 Act?

Answer 32

On the way there he is in possession of articles for use for causing damage, Sec 3.
He also commits an aggravated offence under Sec 1(3). The circumstances point to him having strong reasons to believe that the squatters may be in the house and if he sets fire to it without first checking that it is safe to do so, he commits the offence of aggravated arson by being reckless as to whether or not another’s life would be endangered. The offence is complete even though the squatters had gone out and no-one could have actually been harmed

Question 33

Scenario: Samantha has just found out her partner has been cheating on her. Armed with an air rifle she goes to her partner’s house where she can see him standing by the window in his living room. She fires the rifle which smashes the window; the bullet alone continues and hits her intended victim on the arm causing injury

Q: In relation to Criminal damage, further offences, have any offences (apart from firearms offences) been committed…if so which one(s) and why?

Answer 33

Samantha has committed an offence under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and an assault. It is the bullet that has caused the injury and not the glass from the broken window

Question 34

Scenario: James has been out all night and is drunk. Whilst walking on his way home he sees his ex-girlfriend’s car parked up outside her house. James picks up a brick intending to smash the windscreen but before he could he is stopped by the police

Q: Have any offences been committed…if so which one and why?

Answer 34

James commits the offence of having anything (a brick) in his custody or control with intent, without lawful excuse, to use it to destroy/damage property belonging to another – Section 3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

Question 35

If someone damages their own property, if the damage turns out to be minor will they still be charged for aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 35

The outcome of the damage is not relevant if they intended or were reckless to endanger someone’s else’s life