Criminal Damage

Question 1

Samuel v Stubbs

Answer 1

no need to define these terms - just a matter of fact. Damage is an ordinary word

Question 2

A v R

Answer 2

Spat at policeman. The coat needed dry cleaning - simple wipe to remove the stain - no damage. The burden of proof is on protection that the damage occurred - no expense in retaining to its original position - NO DAMAGE

Question 3

Hardman Chief Constable Avon v Somerset

Answer 3

drawings on pavement - however, they had to use high-pressure hoses - The damage does not need to be permanent. The expense and inconvenience is important

Question 4

Roe v Kingerlee

Answer 4

even 7£ cost of repair means that it was damage

Question 5

Morphitas v Salmon

Answer 5

scratching was okay - there must be a permanent change in value and usefulness

Question 6

R v Fiak

Answer 6

no lasting damage - but it was temporary unusable

Question 7

Criminal Damage Act 1971 s10(1)

Answer 7

in this Act “property” means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money and—

Question 8

CDA 1971 s10(1)(a)

Answer 8

including wild creatures which have been tamed or are ordinarily kept in captivity, and any other wild creatures or their carcasses if, but only if, they have been reduced into possession which has not been lost or abandoned or are in the course of being reduced into possession; but

Question 9

CDA 1971 s10(1)(b)

Answer 9

not including mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land
(“mushroom” includes any fungus and “plant” includes any shrub or tree)

Question 10

R v Whitely

Answer 10

damage to tangible property

Question 11

CDA 1971 s10(2)(a,b,c)

Answer 11

(a) having the custody or control of it;
(b) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or
(c) having a charge on it.

Question 12

CDA 1971 s10(3)

Answer 12

Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be so treated as including any person having a right to enforce the trust.

Question 13

CDA 1971 s10(5)

Answer 13

For the purposes of this Act a modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition

Question 14

R v G

Answer 14

MR - is largely subjective. What D himself foresaw

Question 15

R v Smith

Answer 15

D must known that the property belongs to another or realise that it might

Question 16

s5(2)(a)

Answer 16

belief that the owner consented or would have consented had he known

Question 17

s5(2)(b)

Answer 17

it was necessary to protect other property belonging to D or another

Question 18

s5(3) - consent

Answer 18

it’s a subjective test

Question 19

Jaggard v Dickinson

Answer 19

the defence works even if it’s a mistake belief

Question 20

R v Denton

Answer 20

general lawfulness to the activity

Question 21

Blake v DPP

Answer 21

belief however powerful would not work. God cannot consent to damage

Question 22

R v Baker and Wilkings

Answer 22

you can’t invoke this when protecting the person

Question 23

s5(2)(b)(i)

Answer 23

D believes that the property is in immediate need of protection (Johnson v DPP)

Question 24

s5(2)(b)(ii)

Answer 24

D believes that the means of protection adopted are reasonable in the circumstances - ONLY believes, not that they are

Question 25

R v Hunt

Answer 25

to demonstrate the inadequacy of the fire alarm, he broke a fire. This was inadequate

Question 26

R v Hill & Hall

Answer 26

protecting the property was bombed - what they were doing not objectively being capable of protecting

Question 27

Blake v DPP

Answer 27

damage concrete pillar to protect people in the gulf - not objectively capable of protecting

Question 28

s5(5)

Answer 28

other self defence or duress

Question 29

R v Sangha

Answer 29

no life need actually be endangered

Question 30

CDA 1971 Aggravated damage - s1(2)

Answer 30

(2) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—
(a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and
(b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;

Question 31

R v Steer

Answer 31

he foresaw the damage from the Bullet not from the damaged window

Question 32

R v Dudley

Answer 32

no need to endanger life - the issue is whether he intended or reckless - major damage to the house would also endanger life

Question 33

R v Webster

Answer 33

sometimes the distinction could be too confusing - he pushed a stone from the bridge on the train - they must have foresaw by the damage caused by the damage property

Question 34

Arson s1(1) and s1(3)

Answer 34

(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.

Question 35

Aggravated s1(2) & s1(3)

Answer 35

(2) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—
(a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and
(b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;

shall be guilty of an offence.
(3)An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson

Question 36

Threats to damage property s2

Answer 36

A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out,—
(a)to destroy or damage any property belonging to that other or a third person; or

(b)to destroy or damage his own property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of that other or third person;

shall be guilty of an offence.

Question 37

Possession with intent to destroy or damage property s3

Answer 37

A person who has anything in his custody or under his control intending without lawful excuse to use it or cause or permit another to use it—
(a)to destroy or damage any property belonging to some other person; or

(b)to destroy or damage his own or the user’s property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of some other person;

shall be guilty of an offence.