Criminal Damage

Question 1

Name and authorities for 3 types of criminal damage

Answer 1

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

Question 2

The three types of damage

Answer 2

Physically altered, harmed or impaired GAYFORD

Question 3

Principle from FIAK

Answer 3

Also likely to be criminal damage if D causes the property to be temporarily unfit for use

Question 4

Principle from roe v kingerlee

Answer 4

It is likely to be criminal damage if it will cost money, time and/or effort to remove the damage

Question 5

Principle from morphitis and salmon

Answer 5

The type and purpose of the property may be relevant

Question 6

Principle from gayford v chouler

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Not property covered by the act

Answer 7

• mushrooms, growing wild on any land or flowers, fruits and foliage of a plant growing wild on any land
• intangible rights

Question 8

Belonging to another for criminal damage

Answer 8

Any person:

• having custody/control of it
• having in it any proprietary right/interest
• having a charge on it

Question 9

Mens rea of basic criminal damage

Answer 9

• d conduct intended/reckless as to causing destruction/damage of property belonging to another
• destruction/damage of property must be without lawful excuse

Question 10

Principle smith

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Meaning of recklessness with authority

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Lawful excuse defence for basic criminal damage

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Reason for acquittal in JAGGARD V DICKINSON

Answer 13

Her drunkenness did not invalidate her belief that her friend would’ve consented to the damage caused

Question 14

Lawful excuse failed in hunt because

Answer 14

Act of setting fire to the bedding was not done in order to protect property in need of immediate protection, but for another purpose

Question 15

Lawful excuse failed in CRESSWELL because

Answer 15

The wild badgers were not property and did not belong to another so the Ds were guilty

Question 16

Bizarre principle from baker v Wilkins

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Additional mens rea for s.1(2) aggravated criminal damage

Answer 17

Intention or recklessness as to whether the life of another is endangered by destruction or damage STEER

Question 18

S.1(2) difference from s.1(1) regarding property

Answer 18

D can destroy or damage his own property provided there is intent or recklessness as to endangering the life of another

Question 19

Does not apply to s.1(2) aggravated criminal damage

Answer 19

Lawful excuses defence- D will only have a lawful excuse in exceptional circumstances

Question 20

Mens rea principle from STEER

Answer 20

The intended or foreseen danger to life must be due to the destruction or damage to the property

Question 21

Not actually required for s.1(2) aggravates criminal damage with authorities d

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Despite including recklessness in the mens rea aggravated criminal damage has been classified as this kind of offence

Answer 22

Specific intent offence

Question 23

Lawful excuse applies to s.1(3) arson unless

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Lawful excuse applied to arson in Denton because

Answer 24

D honestly believed that the owner of the property consented to the destruction/damage of the property by fire