Criminal Damage Flashcards
Name and authorities for 3 types of criminal damage
Basic criminal damage: s.1(1) criminal damage act
Aggravated criminal damage: s.1(2) criminal damage act
Arson: s.1(3) criminal damage act
The three types of damage
Physically altered, harmed or impaired GAYFORD
Principle from FIAK
Also likely to be criminal damage if D causes the property to be temporarily unfit for use
Principle from roe v kingerlee
It is likely to be criminal damage if it will cost money, time and/or effort to remove the damage
Principle from morphitis and salmon
The type and purpose of the property may be relevant
Principle from gayford v chouler
Damage need only be slight and temporary
Property must be physically altered, harmed and impaired
Not necessarily about d causing property to be less valuable
Not property covered by the act
- mushrooms, growing wild on any land or flowers, fruits and foliage of a plant growing wild on any land
- intangible rights
Belonging to another for criminal damage
Any person:
- having custody/control of it
- having in it any proprietary right/interest
- having a charge on it
Mens rea of basic criminal damage
- d conduct intended/reckless as to causing destruction/damage of property belonging to another
- destruction/damage of property must be without lawful excuse
Principle smith
D will lack mens rea of he destroys/damages Vs property under mistaken belief that it is his own. Doesn’t matter whether belief is justified or not/provided it is honestly held
Meaning of recklessness with authority
D can only be guilty if he realised the risk of causing destruction or damage of property which belonged to another and then went on to take that risk G AND R
Lawful excuse defence for basic criminal damage
D honestly believes that
- owner would’ve consented to destruction or damage
- other property was at risk and in need of immediate protection and what he did was reasonable in all the circumstances
Reason for acquittal in JAGGARD V DICKINSON
Her drunkenness did not invalidate her belief that her friend would’ve consented to the damage caused
Lawful excuse failed in hunt because
Act of setting fire to the bedding was not done in order to protect property in need of immediate protection, but for another purpose
Lawful excuse failed in CRESSWELL because
The wild badgers were not property and did not belong to another so the Ds were guilty
Bizarre principle from baker v Wilkins
Their conviction was upheld by the C/A as s5(2)(b) only provides a defence where other property is in immediate need of protection
Additional mens rea for s.1(2) aggravated criminal damage
Intention or recklessness as to whether the life of another is endangered by destruction or damage STEER
S.1(2) difference from s.1(1) regarding property
D can destroy or damage his own property provided there is intent or recklessness as to endangering the life of another
Does not apply to s.1(2) aggravated criminal damage
Lawful excuses defence- D will only have a lawful excuse in exceptional circumstances
Mens rea principle from STEER
The intended or foreseen danger to life must be due to the destruction or damage to the property
Not actually required for s.1(2) aggravates criminal damage with authorities d
Actus reus doesn’t require that any life is in fact endangered, it I enough that d intends or is reckless as to endangering life PARKER
Despite including recklessness in the mens rea aggravated criminal damage has been classified as this kind of offence
Specific intent offence
Lawful excuse applies to s.1(3) arson unless
The destitution or damage by fire is done with intention or recklessness as to whether the life of another is endangered by the destruction or damage by fire
Lawful excuse applied to arson in Denton because
D honestly believed that the owner of the property consented to the destruction/damage of the property by fire
