Criminal Damage Flashcards
Where are the offences of criminal damage found?
They are found in statute in the Criminal Damage Act (CDA) 1971
What are the actual reus elements of simple criminal damage?
The defendant must:
a) destroy or damage
b) property
c) belonging to another
d) without lawful excuse
Would ‘destruction’ of property only mean beating a part of property?
No it could also mean something like burning crops
Can destroying or damaging property also include an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property?
Yes it can include this
What is an indication that something meets the definition of being ‘damage’?
It is a question of fact but usually that expense is incurred in rectifying the consequences of the defendant’s act, this will be enough.
So drawing on a pavement with soluable chalks is damage because the local authority would have to pay the clean up costs
But spitting on a police officer’s raincoat is not damage as there is no cost - he could simply just wipe it off
Does property damage apply to intangible property or things in action?
No, so things in action like a bank account can’t be damaged.
It includes real property like land and buildings and also personal property like money
Are animals included in the definition of property?
a) yes if they are dames or ordinarily kept in captivity (pets and zoo animals)
Or
b) if they have been or are being reduced into possession (for example, a rabbit that has been snared)
What does it mean that the property belongs to another for the purposes of the CDA?
It includes property that someone has legal ownership over and also that the victim has
-custody or control
- a proprietary right or interest
Or
- a charge
What are the two non-exhaustive defences for simple criminal damage or arson?
Lawful excuse is the defence and there are two sub categories:
Belief in consent
Protection of property
Can someone use the two statutory defences of belief in consent or protection of property for aggravated criminal damage?
No - they can only use these for the offences of simple criminal damage or arson
What are the mens rea requirements for simple criminal damage?
Intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another
And
Knowledge or believed that the property belongs to another
What is the second element of the mens rea for simple
Criminal damage ?
That D must know or believe that the property belongs to another - as long as it is honestly held belief and judged subjectively
Example of damaging a radiator of a property you rent and thinking it’s yours or cutting up a wedding dress you think is yours
What are the standards for the lawful excuse of belief in consent in simple criminal damage
That D honestly believed that the person entitled to give consent either consented or would have consented to the damage or destruction. This is a subjective test and it works in non-intuitive circumstances such as when an employee burns down a factory because they think their boss wants them to to get the insurance money
What are the standards involved in the lawful excuse of protecting property in simple criminal damage?
- was D’s real purpose the protection of property (subjective) and could it protect property (objective)
If yes, did D honestly believe:
- the property was in immediate need of protection
And
- the method adopted were reasonless (subjective)
Why is the immediate need of protection argument confusing?
Because it’s a subjective test but sometimes someone can say they thought they needed to do the action to protect property immediately and they can fail because there was no immediate need to protect property
The reason for this is that if there is no reason to immediately need to protect property, the court is unlikely to think D subjectively believed that this was necessary
