Criminal Damage Flashcards
What are the different kinds of criminal damage? Plus statutes.
Basic crim damage s1(1)
Aggravated crim damage s1(2)
Arson s1(1&3)
Aggravated arson s1(2 & 3)
Making threats to destroy or damage property s2
Possession with intent to destroy or damage prop s3
Basic crim damage - AR - damage - case for trying to define the term
Samuels v stubbs - ‘D is a matter of fact and degree’ - no need to define these terms, each case depends.
Damage can be temporary.
Basic crim damage - damage - contrasting cases regarding expense required to remedy damage?
A (a juvenile) v R - Teen spat at policeman. If no expense, no damage.
Hardman v chief const avon and somerset - Painted on pavement, would eventually fade. They got high pressure washers. Not permanent but inconvenient.
Basic crim damage - damage - case kind of clarifying Hardman?
Roe v Kingerlee - poo in cell. Cost £7 to remove. Expense is damage.
Basic crim damage - damage - contrasting cases regarding damage in making the object useless?
Morphitas v Salmon - Scaffold. No damage, did not impare value or usefulness as scaffolds often get scratched.
F v Fiak - Flooded police cell. No lasting damage but cell and blanket unusable, damage.
Basic crim damage - AR - Property - statute and case?
s10.1.
R v Whitely - tangible property, information is not property.
Basic crim damage - AR - belonging to another - statute?
10.2
Parts of AR for Basic crim damage?
Destroy or
damage
property
belonging to another
Basic crim damage - MR - different parts?
Intent
or recklessness
as to destroying or damaging such property
Basic crim damage - MR - recklessness - case and ‘test’?
R v G. no objective test. Largely subj, what D foresaw.
Acts recklessless with respect to:
1) A circ when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist
2) A result when he is aware of a risk that will occur
3) AND it is in the circ known to him, unreasonable to take that risk.
Chief constable of somerset and avon v shimmen - no utility.
Basic crim damage - MR - as to destroying or damaging such property - case?
R v Smith - D must know that property belongs to another, or realise that it might. DIY soundsystem, he did not believe he was guilty.
And … he must intend to damage/destroy property or realise that his actions might result in such damage/dest
And… where the prosecution is relying on recklessness in the circumstances, the risk of damage to property must be an unreasonable one to take.
Defence - without lawful excuse - 5.2a consent - details? How can one tell if it is obj/subj test?
Who does D think owns the prop, or otherwise is in a position to give consent?
Does D believe that this person consents or would have consented had he known what D was doing?
5.3 - subjective.
Jaggard v Dickinson - drunk breaks into wrong house.
R v Denton - burnt down mill as thought he had consent. Relevance of motive for act.
Without lawful excuse - can God give consent?
No - Blake v DPP.
Without lawful excuse - 5.2 - 4 requirements
- s5.2b - D acts in order to protect property -
R v Baker and Wilkins. - s5(2bi) - D believe that the property is in immediate need of protection -
Johnson v DPP. Squatter putting lock on door. - 5bii - D believes that the means of protection adopted are reasonable in the circumstances.
- The act was objectively capable of protecting the property.
R v Hunt (setting fire to old persons bedding to prove alarm did not work),
R v Hull & Hall (s3, found with hacksaw blade outside nuclear sub base, not obj capable of protecting),
Blake v DPP (God-man protecting people in gulf, not obj capable of protection).
How does s5.5 function?
Other lawful excuses, eg self defence, duress etc.
Aggravated crim dam - AR?
destroying or damaging (same)
property (same)
belonging to d or another (only diff, does not matter to whom it belongs)
Aggravated crim dam - MR
Intention or recklessness as to damaging or destroying property (same as above)
AND
Intention or recklessness as to endangering life of another
Aggravated crim dam - MR - Intention or recklessness as to endangering life of another - need life be in actual damger?
No - R v Sangha (firebomb in empty flat)
Aggravated crim dam - MR - Intention or recklessness as to endangering life of another - how must the danger to life intended or foreseen arise?
From the damage cause, not from cause o the damage -
R v Steer - shooting at home.Noone hurt. Reckless as to endanger life by damage… not by damage, but means of damage.
R v Dudley - petrol bomb at house, family living there managed to put out. He argued no danger arised from damage actually cause, but not danger to life need arise at all - reckless. Intended or foresaw major damage endangering life.
R v Webster - danger arising from damage caused and danger arising from cause of damage. Pushed stone onto train. Charged with agg dam intention to endanger life. Must have foreseen danger and risk.
Aggravated crim dam - is it affected by ‘without lawful excuse’?
Not by 5.2. (see 5.1)
Threats to damage property - AR
AS WRITTEN IN STATUTE
Makes a threat to another person to:
A destroy or damage prop belonging to that other or a third person
OR
B to destroy his own property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of that other or a third person.
Making a threat - case?
R v Cakmak - the words must be objectively capable of being understood by an ordinary person of being a threat.
Threat - MR
Intending that the other would fear that the threat would be carried out (statute)
S3 - possession with intent to destroy or damage prop - AR
a person has anything in his custody or control
S3 - possession with intent to destroy or damage prop - MR
intending to use it or cause or permit another to use it…
1) To destroy or damage any prop belonging to some other perosm or
2) To destroy or damage his own or the user’s prop in a way which he knows is likely to endanger life of some other
