CRIMINAL DAMAGE

Question 1

Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, what are the four types of criminal damage offences?

Answer 1

• s1(1) is simple criminal damage
• s1(2) is aggravated criminal damage
• s1(3) is simple arson
• s1(3) and s1(2) is aggravated arson

Question 2

What is the definition of simple criminal damage under the 1971 Act?

Answer 2

• a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence

Question 3

What is the AR of simple criminal damage? Use authorities to explain each one.

Answer 3

1) damage or destruction
- Hardman v Chief constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary Crim LR says how it does not have to be extensive damage, here drawings on pavement with soluble chalk = CD

2) of property
- s10(1)
- covers property of a tangible nature whether real or personal including money, pets, plants

3) belonging to another
- s10(2)
- it will belong to another if they have control over it
- have any proprietary interest in it e.g tenant over the house they’re renting
- having a charge on it

Question 4

What is the MR of CD?

Answer 4

D must
- intend to damage or destroy property or be reckless as to such damage or destruction
- know that the property belongs to another

subjective test of recklessness - what was going in D’s mind

Question 5

What if D honestly believes the property was their own property?

Answer 5

• R v Smith
• the court held that if a person honestly believed property was their own then they lacked the mens rea. It did not matter whether the belief was reasonably held as long as it was an honest belief.

Question 6

Detail s5(2)a and s5(2)b of the lawful excuse defence.

Answer 6

• Under s 5(2)(a): CONSENT DEFENCE

(a) they believed they had the consent of the person who was entitled to give permission for the damage to be caused
(b) they believed they had the consent of the person who they thought was entitled to give permission for the damage to be caused (for example, they thought they had permission from someone whom they (wrongly) believed to be the owner of the property); or
(c) they believed they would have had the consent of the person entitled to give permission if that person had known of the damage and the circumstances; or
(d) they believed they would have had the consent of the person who they thought was entitled to give permission if that person had known of the damage and the circumstances.

• Under s 5(2)b

a) they believed property (their own or another’s) was in immediate need of protection and
(b) they believed that the means of protection they adopted (which led to the criminal damage) were reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

Question 7

What does s5(3) say about s5(2)a and b?

Answer 7

• D’s belief doesn’t have to be reasonable as long as it is an honestly held belief

Question 8

R v Hunt

Answer 8

• when considering whether the defendant has a lawful excuse for criminal damage, whether he was acting to protect property belonging to another is assessed objectively
• this means that the act has to be directly capable, in and of itself, of protecting property.
• was it necessary

Question 9

R v Hill and R v Hall

Answer 9

• similarly to r v hunt, the objective test is required to prove s52b
• was the CD done to protect property
• was it NECESSARY?
• whether D believed the property was in immediate need of protection and whether D believed the means of protection adopted were reasonable is judged subjectively

Question 10

What is the AR and MR of aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 10

AR:
- destroy or damage property

MR:
- intend to destroy or damage property or be reckless as to whether any property is damaged or destroyed
- intend by destruction or damage to endanger the life of another to be reckless as to whether another’s life may be endangered

Question 11

What are the to differences between simple CD and aggravated CD?

Answer 11

1) in ACD property can belong to the defendant

2) there is an ulterior MR
- the endangerment of life

Question 12

Does someone’s life actually need to be endangered as a result of the criminal damage? Use an authority

Answer 12

• no.
• R v Dudley
• looking at D’s mind, although nobody was harmed and the fire was quickly put out, D intended to or was reckless to endangering the lives of others
• still guilty

Question 13

R v Steer

Answer 13

• it must be the criminal damage itself that causes the endangerment to life

Question 14

Does s52a and b refer to aggravated CD? What defences are available to offence of aggravated CD?

Answer 14

• no
• there will only be a defence if done in self defence and to prevent crime