Criminal Damage Flashcards
Criminal Damage Act 1971
Creates 4 offences:
1. Basic offence of CD S1 (1)
- Aggravated offence of CD S1 (2)
- Basic offence of Arson S1 (3) and S1 (1)
- Aggravated offence of Arson S1 (3) and S1 (2)
Basic offence S1 (1)
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.
Actus Reus - Destroy
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
AR - Damage
Parliament doesn’t provide definition. Examples can be found in cases (see other revision cards)
Roe v Kingerlee
Damage can be temporary or permanent.
Damage is a matter of ‘fact’ and ‘degree’.
A (a juvenile) v R
Spitting/ tipping something on clothing will only amount to damage if it stains.
Hardman V Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary
The cost of hiring expensive water jets meant painting signs on the streets amounted to damage.
Blake v DPP
The time and effort it took to remove the graffiti meant it amounted to damage.
Morphitis v Salmon
If the type, purpose or usefulness of the property is affected then it may have been damaged.
AR - Property
S10 (1) defines property to include:
- Tangible
- Personal
- Real
- Money
- Tamed animals and Carcasses.
AR - Belonging to another
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.
R v Smith
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.
AR - Without lawful excuse
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.
S5 (2) (a)
D believed that V (the owner) would have consented to the damage.
R v Denton
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.
S5(3)
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.
Jaggard v Dickinson
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).
S5 (2) (b)
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.
Chamberlain v Lindon
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.
Blake v DPP (2)
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.
R v Baker
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.
Mens Rea
D must either intend or be reckless as to damaging or destroying property belonging to another.
Pembliton
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.
R v Smith (2)
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.
