Criminal Damage Flashcards

1
Q

What are the 6 offences under the criminal damage act?

A
  1. Criminal damage S1(1)
  2. Aggravated criminal damage S1(2)
  3. Arson S1(1) and S1(3)
  4. Aggravated arson S1(2) and S1(3)
  5. S2 - Threats to property
  6. S3 - Possession with intent to damage property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the AR of criminal damage?

A
  • Damage/destroy (case law)
  • Property S10(2)
  • BTA (S10(1)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Sauel v Stubbs

A
  • Give ordinary meaning generally

- Damage is a matter of fact and degree

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

A v R

A
  • No expense or effort necessary to deal with spit on uniform so not damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Hardman v Chief Constable

A

Expense and effort incurred in rectifying so therefore was damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Roe v Kingerlee

A

Mud on walls cost £7 to remove, this was criminal damage as required expense to rectify

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Morphitas v Salmon

A

Temporarily making something useless could be criminal damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v Fiak

A

Flooding a cell constituted criminal damage as it made the cell temporarily useless

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Whitely

A

Property must be tanglible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

MR for basic criminal damage

A
  • Intent (R v Maloney)

- Recklessness (R v G)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v G recklessness

A
  • Subjectively aware of the risk

- Objectively unreasonable to take it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R v Smith

A

Removed wiring he had installed from rented flat. This was not criminal damage as he was not aware this was not his property so he did not have the MR which requires subjective knowledge of risk (no perception of risk here as thought the property was his)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v Miller

A

Criminal damage by omission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Lucena v Cranford

A

Where there is a mortgage on the property or it is insured then for a S5(2)(a) defence to work the belief in consent must apply to them too

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

S5(2)(a)

A

Belief that the owner consented or would have consented had he known (subjective)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Jaggard v Dickinson

A
  • Broke a window in the drunken mistaken belief that the hose was his
  • Was still a genuine belief so the S5(2)(a) defence operated
17
Q

R v Denton

A
A S5(2)(a) defence can operate despite the consent to damage being unlawful
- Can't be guilty of a crime of damaging your own property
18
Q

Blake v DPP

A

Gods consent is not consentq

19
Q

Lloyd v DPP

A
  • Removal of wheel clamps in protecting property was not a S5(2)(b) defence as risk to property was not immediate enough
20
Q

S5(2)(b)

A
  • Defence to criminal damage when argue that damage to proerty was necessary to protect your property
21
Q

Requirements for a S5(2)(b) defence

A
  1. Immediacy (subjective)
  2. Measures taken were reasonable to protect property (subjective)
  3. Criminal damage caused in protecting property was objectively capable of protecting property
22
Q

S5(2)(b) is only available in defence of property…case?

A

R v Baker Willkins

23
Q

Johnson v DPP

A

Damage to property which other damage is preventing must be immediate

24
Q

S5(2)(b)(ii) - stating that the protection must be reasonable

A
  1. This is based on the subjective belief of the defendant that the act could prevent damage
  2. The act must have been objectively capable of protecting property
25
Q

R v Hunt

A
  • Set fire to mattress to demonstrate inadequate fire alarms
  • Measure was taken with the belief in the reasonableness of the action to prevent damage, but judged not to be capable of protecting property so the defence was rejected
26
Q

R v Hill and Hall

A

Sabotaged nuclear capability in belief that it was necessary to pprevent further harm. S5(2)(b) was not available as the damage was too remote

27
Q

S5(5)

A

States other lawful defences are allowed

28
Q

S1(2) aggravated criminal damage - added AR

A

Endangers life

29
Q

MR for aggravated criminal damage?

A

Intention or recklessness as to endangering life

30
Q

R v Sangha

A

No life actually need be endagered, just needs to be an intention or recklessness as to endangerment

31
Q

R v Steer

A

Danger to life must arise from damage caused not cause of damage
- Shot walls with gun

32
Q

R v Dudley

A

Threw fire bomb into house.
The damage here was posed by the fire, not by the bomb, so criminal damage was a possible offence here as danger to life arose from damage caused not cause of damage

33
Q

R v Webster

A

Threw a paving stone at a train. Criminal damage as there was danger from damage caused as well as cause of damage

34
Q

S5(1)

A
  • States that s5(2) defences are not available for S1(2) offences
35
Q

R v Wenton

A

Broke window and threw in a petrol bomb

Bomb did not go off, however intended to endanger life so was an aggravated arson offence

36
Q

R v Buckingham

A
  • s3 offence of possession with intent can be made out even where the intent is a ‘last resort’ (conditional)