Criminal damage Flashcards
Simple Criminal Damage
All the elements of simple criminal damage are satisfied: The man damaged the window which belonged to his neighbour without lawful excuse. He was reckless as to the damage and knew the window belonged to his neighbour.
The man will not be liable for aggravated criminal damage as he did not intend to endanger life or was reckless thereto.
A man and his girlfriend have an argument over the phone, and the man is very upset about it. In anger, the man visits his girlfriend’s property and sets fire to a council-owned bin, which is right next to her front door, which he hopes will also catch fire. The man leaves, but five minutes later he regrets what he has done, and texts his girlfriend to tell her. He runs back to the property and puts the fire out, as he does not know whether his girlfriend is at her property, nor whether she will see his text message in time. The fire had not spread beyond the bin, although it had created some holes in the bin, and the man found it easy to put out.
Which of the following statements best describes the man’s liability in relation to simple arson and/or aggravated arson?
A-The man has not committed aggravated arson because the fire was extinguished before any lives were placed at risk.
B-The man has not committed simple arson because the bin did not belong to his girlfriend, being the person to whom his anger was directed.
C-The man has committed aggravated arson only, as it is not possible for both simple and aggravated arson to be committed on the same set of facts.
D-As the man did not know whether his girlfriend was in the property, he is not liable for aggravated arson, as it is clear that he did not intend to endanger her life.
E-The man is liable for aggravated arson, as the offence was complete before he took steps to extinguish the fire.
Option E is correct because all elements of aggravated arson were present at the point that the man set the bin alight, and his extinguishing the fire came after the original coincidence of his actus reus and mens rea.
Option A is wrong because life need not actually be endangered for aggravated arson to be made out (see the case of R v Dudley).
Option B is wrong because for arson to be committed, the requirement is that property was damaged and that the property belonged to another, but it does not matter who that property belonged to.
Option C is wrong because a person can be liable for (i.e. have committed) both simple arson and aggravated arson. It is not the case that only one or the other can arise from an incident.
Option D is wrong because, as the man did not know whether his girlfriend was there or not, he was at least reckless to her life being endangered, which is enough for this offence to be made out.
Quick Q:
A man is very short of money and decides to set fire to his factory with a view to claiming the insurance money. He has chosen a Friday night because he knows most of his staff go home early and thinks the chances of anyone being on the premises after 6.00 p.m. are low. When he goes out to check the carpark, he is very surprised to see one of his employee’s cars and wonders if he could still be inside the building. The man thinks he could be but decides it is unlikely. He goes back inside and sets fire to a box of paper in the photocopying room and ensures the fire is spreading before he leaves via the back door. Fortunately, the employee who is still in the building, sees the flames and is able to get out of the building before the fire really takes hold. The building is totally destroyed by the fire.
Which of the following best describes why your client may be deemed to have the requisite mens rea for aggravated criminal damage?
Because he intended the damage to the building and he was reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered.
Option C is correct. The mens rea of aggravated criminal damage is intending or being reckless as to damaging or destroying property plus intending or being reckless as to endangering the life of another by that damage. It is clear that the man’s purpose was to get the insurance money but he foresaw the risk of the building being damaged as a virtual certainty. This meets the definition for indirect intention. As far as the ulterior element is concerned in relation to endangering life, the man did not want to endanger the life of another nor did he foresee it as a virtual certainty, he only foresaw the risk as a possibility, but this still makes him reckless as to whether the life of another was endangered.
A woman lives with her mother at her mother’s house. She has left her key at work. On returning home she looks through the front window and is horrified to see her mother lying on the floor with a piece of coal from the fire smouldering on the carpet by her side. The woman grabs a large stone that she finds in the garden, smashes the window and climbs into the house. She picks up the coal and throws it back into the fire before telephoning for an ambulance. Her mother is admitted to hospital and makes a full recovery.
Has the woman committed an offence of simple criminal damage in these circumstances?
A-No, provided the court is satisfied that a reasonable person in the woman’s position would have acted in the same way to save her mother.
B-No, because the woman honestly believed that the property was in immediate danger and the damage was reasonable in the circumstances.
C-No, because the woman may rely upon the defence of lawful excuse as a reasonable person would have consented to the damage had they known of the circumstances.
D-Yes, because the woman intentionally damaged property belonging to her mother.
E-Yes, because the woman has recklessly damaged property belonging to another and is aware that the property belongs to her mother.
The correct answer is option B as the woman honestly believed – a subjective test – that the property (the house) was in immediate danger from the piece of coal and smashing the window was reasonable in these circumstances.
Option A is wrong as the court will decide – objectively – what the defendant’s purpose was under s 5(2)(b) of the CDA 1971 and this must be to protect property (and not to save her mother). To establish the defence of lawful excuse under s 5(2)(a) of the CDA 1971, the woman’s belief need only be an honest one (subjective) so option C is wrong.
Option D is wrong because although the woman did intentionally cause criminal damage, she will be able to rely on the defence of lawful excuse. Option E is wrong as the defendant intentionally, rather than recklessly, damaged her grandmother’s property as she smashed the window deliberately.
Quick Q:
A man attends at his ex-wife’s property. He uses his car key to scratch a car on her drive, believing it to belong to her new partner. It turns out that the car belongs to her sister.
He then decides to throw rocks at an upstairs window, which he knows to be his ex-wife’s bedroom. He intends to break the glass. The window smashes and a large rock enters the property and hits the ex-wife’s new partner on the head, he falls and hits his head on the corner of a dressing table which results in his death.
Which of the following best describes the man’s criminal liability?
The man is liable for criminal damage in respect of the scratch and the window, and he is liable for unlawful act manslaughter in relation to the death of his ex-wife’s new partner.
Option E is correct because the actus reus and mens rea of criminal damage has been satisfied in respect of the car and the doctrine of transferred malice applies. Therefore, it does not matter that the man thought he was damaging a car belonging to his ex-wife’s new partner. The mens rea and actus reus of criminal damage has also been satisfied in relation to the bedroom window.
In relation to the death of the new partner, the doctrine of transferred malice cannot apply to convict the man of murder. As per the case of R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2 CCR 119, the actus reus of the crime committed must be the same as the actus reus of the crime that was intended. However, the defendant can be found guilty of constructive manslaughter as he has done an unlawful act by committing criminal damage, which is dangerous, and which has caused the death of the new partner.
This answer is wrong (gross negligence manslaughter): The man is liable for criminal damage in respect of the scratch, criminal damage in relation to the window and liable for gross negligence manslaughter in relation to the death of his ex-wife’s new partner.
Because….Option A is wrong because the man is not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter as he does not owe the new partner a duty of care.
Quick Q:
The defendant receives a text from his employer telling him that he has lost his job. He throws his mobile phone to the floor in anger and breaks the screen. The defendant then goes straight to the office where he worked and throws an egg at the window. Afterwards, he decides to visit his girlfriend and, as he has no money, he picks some buttercups from the roadside and gives them to her.
To remove the mark of the egg, the employer had to purchase cleaning materials and scrub the window although it only took a couple of minutes to do so.
Which one of the following statements describes the defendant’s liability for criminal damage?
The defendant is liable for criminal damage to the window, but not the phone or the buttercups.
The correct answer is option C. The defendant is liable for criminal damage for the mark caused by the egg, despite the fact it could easily be removed, because expense was incurred in restoring the wall to its previous condition. He is not liable for the damage to the mobile phone as it is his own, so does not belong to another. Nor is the defendant criminally liable for picking the buttercups, as these are wild flowers growing by the roadside so not property within the definition of the CDA 1971. For these reasons, options A, B, D and E are wrong in some way.
A woman works in an elderly person’s home as a health care assistant. She is concerned about the level of care which the residents are receiving from the owner of the care home. She decides to place a camera inside a clock which hangs on the wall in a vulnerable resident’s room so that she can secretly record what is happening. The clock belongs to the owner of the care home. The woman’s aim is to gather evidence to take to the police so that the owner will be prosecuted for abuse of the residents. When doing so, the woman drops the clock and damages the glass on the front.
The woman is seen by another employee and is arrested for criminal damage.
Is the woman liable for criminal damage in these circumstances?
A-No, because the mens is not satisfied as she did not intend to damage the clock.
B-Yes, because she cannot rely on lawful excuse as she damaged property belonging to her employer.
C-No, because she can rely upon the defence of lawful excuse of honest belief in consent as this is a subjective test.
D-Yes, because she cannot rely upon the defence of lawful excuse as her purpose was to gather evidence on abuse of the residents.
E-No, because recording secretly inside a workplace is not a reasonable means of protecting property.
The correct answer is option D. For the defence of lawful excuse under s.5(2)(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971 to apply, the woman’s purpose must be the protection of her own or another’s property. In this instance, her purpose was to expose abuse of residents in the care home.
Option A is wrong as the woman does not need to intend to damage the clock; the mens rea for criminal damage may also be satisfied by recklessness.
Option B is wrong because the woman can rely upon lawful excuse and it does not matter who the property belongs to.
Option C is wrong in this situation. The clock belongs to the owner of the care home. Under s.5(1)(a) CDA 1971, the woman will not be guilty of criminal damage if she had an honest belief that the person entitled to consent had or would have consented. Given that the woman acted covertly and damaged the clock when gathering evidence against the owner to take to the police, this is unlikely.
Option E is wrong. For the defence of lawful excuse to apply, the woman must satisfy the court that the means adopted were reasonable in the circumstances. It is likely that secret recordings would be regarded as reasonable. However, the defence would fail as stated above, namely, because the damage or destruction was not for the protection of property.
