Criminal Damage Flashcards
Basic criminal damage (s1(1)CDA 1971) - AR
Destroys or damages property belonging to another
No general rule as to what constitutes damage - look at circumstances and nature of article. Unnecessary to establish such definite damage as renders the property useless or prevents it from serving its normal function
Samuels v Stubbs
Spitting on coat not criminal damage - there must be some expense on the part of the owner to restore it to its previous condition
A (a juvenile) v R
Damage need not be permanent
Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon
Mud spread on police walls may constitute damage
Roe v Kingerlee
Criminal damage includes not only permanent or temporary physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness
Morphitis v Salmon
Information does not fall within the definition of property
R v Whitely
MR for basic criminal damage
Intention or recklessness (R vG) as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another
Insufficient that D does an act that damages property intentionally, he must also know or be reckless as to whether the property belonged to another
R v Smith
Without lawful excuse exceptions - s5(2)(a) - test for belief is subjective. Even if the belief resulted from the defendant’s intoxication, regarless of whether the belief is reasonable, the defendant is entitled to the defence as long as it is honestly held
Jaggard v Dickinson
Motive is irrelevant to s5(2)(a) provided D honestly believes that owner would have consented, even where motive is perpetrate a crime
R v Denton (believed factory owner wanted him to burn down factory)
Argument that God consented to damage failed - s5(2)(a)
DPP v Blake
Defence where the defendant acts to protect his or another’s property only applies to property - s5(2)(b)
R v Baker and Wilkins (kicked down door to protect child)
Accused must believe that the property was in immediate need of protection (subjective) - s5(2)(b)
Johnson v DPP (squatter fitting locks - not immediate)
Accused must believe that the means of protection are reasonable (subjective) and the damage caused by the accused must be objectively capable of protecting the property- s5(2)(b)
R v Hunt (started fire to show inadequacy of fire alarm)
Blake v DPP (grafitti cannot protect property)
R v Hill and Hall (cutting wire to nuclear submarine base, not capable of protecting property)
Aggravated criminal damage
Can be committed against his own property
s5(2) defences do not apply
AR aggravated criminal damage
A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages property, whether belonging to himself or another (s1(2) CDA 1971)
MR aggravated criminal damage
Intention/recklessness as to damage or destruction of property
AND
Intention/recklessness as to the endangerment of life by the damage or destruction
Life need not actually be threatened - neighbours were not in but defendant was reckless as to endangerment of life
R v Sangha
Danger to life must arise from the damaged property
R v Steer (shot bullets through a window)
R v Webster (pushed stone onto train - endangerment must come from roof debris not the rock)
Where damage is caused by fire, the risk to life will always be from the damaged property
R v Steer
AR Arson
Damage or destruction by fire
MR Arson
Intention or recklessness as to damage or destruction by fire
Threats to destroy or damage property
s2 CDA 1971:
A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that the other would fear it would be carried out to destroy or damage property belonging to the other or a third party or to destroy or damage his own property in a way that he knows is likely to endanger the life of that other or third person.
