Criminal Damage

Question 1

Criminal Damage Act 1971

Answer 1

Creates 4 offences:
1. Basic offence of CD S1 (1)

2. Aggravated offence of CD S1 (2)
3. Basic offence of Arson S1 (3) and S1 (1)
4. Aggravated offence of Arson S1 (3) and S1 (2)

Question 2

Basic offence S1 (1)

Answer 2

States that a person is guilty if:

He without lawful excuse, destroys or damages property belonging to another intending or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged.

Question 3

Actus Reus - Destroy

Answer 3

Parliament doesn’t provide definition - However, it is widely accepted to include ‘making property useless so that it cannot fulfil its purpose’.

E.gs of destroying: Break, smash, shred

Question 4

AR - Damage

Answer 4

Parliament doesn’t provide definition. Examples can be found in cases (see other revision cards)

Question 5

Roe v Kingerlee

Answer 5

Damage can be temporary or permanent.

Damage is a matter of ‘fact’ and ‘degree’.

Question 6

A (a juvenile) v R

Answer 6

Spitting/ tipping something on clothing will only amount to damage if it stains.

Question 7

Hardman V Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary

Answer 7

The cost of hiring expensive water jets meant painting signs on the streets amounted to damage.

Question 8

Blake v DPP

Answer 8

The time and effort it took to remove the graffiti meant it amounted to damage.

Question 9

Morphitis v Salmon

Answer 9

If the type, purpose or usefulness of the property is affected then it may have been damaged.

Question 10

AR - Property

Answer 10

S10 (1) defines property to include:

1. Tangible
2. Personal
3. Real
4. Money
5. Tamed animals and Carcasses.

Question 11

AR - Belonging to another

Answer 11

S10 (2) Property is treated as belonging to any person who has:

• Having custody or control
• Having a proprietary right or interest
• (Don’t need this one for exam) Having a charge.

Question 12

R v Smith

Answer 12

Proprietary right/ interest belonged to landlord as the fixtures were on his property.

D not guilty on the basis he thought he was damaging own property - lack of MR.

Question 13

AR - Without lawful excuse

Answer 13

S5 (2) provides two specific lawful excuses in relation to the basic offence, both of which are based on D’s belief, so are subjective.

Question 14

S5 (2) (a)

Answer 14

D believed that V (the owner) would have consented to the damage.

Question 15

R v Denton

Answer 15

S5 (2) (a) available to D as he believed the owner consented to him burning down mill - Took it as low value as he was of low intelligence.

Question 16

S5(3)

Answer 16

D is still able to rely on this defence (S5(2)(a)) even if the reason D thought V consented was because D was intoxicated, as long as D’s belief is honestly held.

Question 17

Jaggard v Dickinson

Answer 17

D able to rely on S5 (2) (a) if D’s belief in consent was mistaken, and even if this was because D was drunk (or stupid or forgetful).

Question 18

S5 (2) (b)

Answer 18

D believes other property is at risk and in need of immediate protection and what D did was reasonable in all the circumstances to protect it.

Question 19

Chamberlain v Lindon

Answer 19

D believed V’s (neighbour) property was at risk and in need of immediate protection and that what he did to protect it was reasonable in the circumstances.

Question 20

Blake v DPP (2)

Answer 20

D tried to use both exclusions to justify his actions - both failed. It isn’t sufficient to rely on God to ‘consent’ to D’s actions - too many people would get away with crimes.

Question 21

R v Baker

Answer 21

D couldn’t rely on lawful excuse S5 (2) (b) because she thought her child was at risk and in need of protection, not the property.

Question 22

Mens Rea

Answer 22

D must either intend or be reckless as to damaging or destroying property belonging to another.

Question 23

Pembliton

Answer 23

D was acquitted as there was no MR for CD as D did not intend to destroy or damage property belonging to another. However, courts could have relied on recklessness instead.

Question 24

R v Smith (2)

Answer 24

D had been reckless in damaging property belonging to another by removing the wiring.

Lack MR of offence - genuinely thought he was damaging own property.

Question 25

Recklessness

Answer 25

Courts have alternated between 2 types of recklessness over the years: Objective (based on the reasonable person) and subjective (based on D) but the issue was definitively settled in R v G and R.

Question 26

R v G and R

Answer 26

Ds only been reckless if they realised there was a risk of damage to the shops and carried on regardless. (Using cunningham test - D realises the risk of his conduct but carries on regardless).

Question 27

Aggravated Criminal Damage

S1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971

Answer 27

A person will be guilty if he, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another -

a) intending to destroy/damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged, and
b) intending by the destruction/damage to endanger life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered from the damage/ destruction.

Question 28

How is aggravated offence different from the basic offence?

Answer 28

Extra MR of endangering life.

Property belonging to D himself as well as/ or another.

‘Without lawful excuse’ Does not refer to S5(2)(a) or S5(2)(b).

Question 29

Additional MR

Answer 29

Intention or recklessness as to endangering life of another by the damage/ destruction of property.

Question 30

Additional MR has 2 core parts:

1. D must intend or be reckless about endangering another person’s life

Answer 30

It isn’t a requirement that someone’s life must actually be endangered, as long as D intended or was reckless as to life being endangered by damage.

Question 31

R v Shangha

Answer 31

Doesn’t matter if act is not capable of endangering life, so as long as D foresees it could do so.

Question 32

Additional MR has 2 core parts:

2. By damage/ destruction of property

Answer 32

Intention/ recklessness to endanger life must come from damage to the property, and not from D’s act which causes the damage.

Question 33

R v Steer

Answer 33

D must have intended or been reckless as to the danger to life, coming from the damage, NOT the act which caused the damage.

Question 34

Arson

S1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971

Answer 34

Destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.

All requirements of S1(1) OR S1(2) apply.

All ingredients are the same as for the basic offence, only additional requirement is that the damage is carried out by fire.

Where D is charged with aggravated arson, prosecution must prove that D ‘intended or was reckless as to endanger life by damage caused by fire’.

Question 35

R v Miller

Answer 35

Arson can be carried out via an omission.

Question 36

Additional notes

Answer 36

Defence of lawful excuse under S5 can only be used for the basic offence of arson, not for the aggravated offence - same as criminal damage.