Criminal Damage

Question 1

Criminal Damage Act (1971)

Section 1(1)

Answer 1

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

Question 2

Actus reus

Damage or destruction

Answer 2

Section 1(1) cover two types of harm to property:

Damage- material change affecting the value and/ or utility of the property, i.e. Ripping pages from a book

Destruction- total elimination of value/ utility that renders the property wholly useless i.e. Putting a book through a shredder

Question 3

Property

Answer 3

Definition of property was found in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s10
(Is similar to that used in Theft with two exceptions in that the criminal Damage

1. Excludes intangible property such as credit balances
2. Includes the real property such as land and buildings. These cannot be stolen but are frequently the target of criminal damage

Question 4

Belonging to another

Answer 4

Criminal damage requires the property ‘belongs to another’; it is. It an offence that damage/destroy one’s own property

The aggravated offence does cover damage/destruction of ones own property, this is a key distinction between the two offences.

Question 5

Section 5 (2)

Answer 5

There are two situations in which the defendant will have a lawful excuse to damage or destroy property:

1. He believed the owner consented to the damage/destruction or would have done that they known of the circumstances
2. He destroyed/damaged property believing this is to be the most reasonable way to protect property from the immediate threat

Question 6

Consent

Answer 6

The belief that the owner would consent to the damage/destruction of property must be honestly held but need not be reasonable. This can lead to seemingly anomalous conclusions.

Question 7

Protection of property

Answer 7

Three requirements:

1. There must be an immediate threat to property
2. The steps taken to protect the property must be reasonable and
3. The property must be damaged or destroyed in order to protect it

Question 8

R v Hunt (1978)

Answer 8

D was worried about inadequate fire-safety precautions in sheltered accommodation but his concerns were dismissed by the management
He started a fire to show how inoperable fire alarms are and the inadequacy of the evacuation procedures

Legal Principle
Lawful excuse was not available as the defendant was motivated by a desire to draw attention to safety defects rather than to protect property
The issue of whether actions were undertaken ‘in order to protect property’ was an objective question to be determined by the court with no regard for the defendants motive or intentions

Reaffirmed in Hill and Hall (1989) which gave rise to a two stage war based upon the statutory requirements

Question 9

Hill and Hall (1989)

Answer 9

Stage 1- subjective

Did the defendant believe that the property was in immediate need of protection and that the means used to protect the property were reasonable?

Stage 2- objective

Was the defendants act performed in order to protect property ?

Question 10

Mens rea elements

Answer 10

Intention

Recklessness

Question 11

Intention

Answer 11

Intentional damage/destruction of property is usually straightforward as the defendant’s aim will be evident

There must be intention in relation to all aspects of the actus reus so the defendant must intend to damage/destroy property belonging to another.

A person who intentionally damages property believing that it is his own is not liable

Question 12

Recklessness

Answer 12

For many years, criminal damage was based on objective recklessness but since the HOL overruled Caldwell (1982) the test has been subjective

Question 13

Definition of recklessness

Answer 13

A person acts recklessly with respect to

(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist
(ii) a result when he is aware of the risk that will occur and it is in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk R v G (2004)

Question 14

Recklessness

Answer 14

This test of recklessness is based on volition all risk- taking, therefore, the defendant must be aware that there is a risk that property belonging to another will be damaged

It is irrelevant that the defendant thinks that the risk of damage is very small; it is awareness of a risk that this the basis of recklessness, not awareness of the magnitude of the risk

R v G differs from other forms of subjective recklessness as it contains explicit references to ‘reasonable’ risk- taking

Question 15

Aggravated criminal damage

Answer 15

Criminal Damage Act 1971 s1(2)
A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another

(a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged
(b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered is guilty of an offence

Question 16

Actus reus

Belonging to another

Answer 16

In general, a person may do anything they wish with their own property, including destroying or damaging it; however, to do so in such a way that the lives of others are endangered attracts criminal liability

Question 17

Mens rea elements

Answer 17

Endangerment of life

The major distinction between the basic and the aggravated offences lies with the requirement that the defendant intends or is reckless as to the endangerment of life

• There is no need for life to be endangered. This is a mens rea element so concerns the defendant’.s state of mind not his actions
• the defendant must intend that life is endangered by the damage/destruction of property (or be reckless thereto)

Question 18

R v Steer (1988)

Answer 18

The defendant fired a rifle at the windows of his house, causing damage.
The defendants conviction for criminal damage with intent to endanger life was quashed.

Legal principle- it must be the damage to property that endangers life not the means by which the property is damaged.

It is not enough that the defendants act causes criminal damage and endangers life; the defendant must intend it forsee that the criminal damage caused by his act will endanger life

Elliot (1997)

Question 19

Arson

Answer 19

This offence replicates criminal damage when the means used to damage/destroy property is fire

Question 20

Criminal Damage Act (1971)

Answer 20

An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson