Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal > Criminal Damage > Flashcards

Criminal Damage Flashcards

1
Q

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

Actus Reus

  • Destroy or damage
  • Property
  • Belonging to another

Mens Rea

  • Intent or recklessness as to destroying or damaging such property

Defences

  • “Without lawful excuse”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Samuels v Stubbs [1972]

Actus Reus: Damage

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

“Damage” is a matter of fact and degree

No need to define these terms.

Damage is an ordinary English word.

Each case depends on circumstances

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

A (A juvenile) v R [1978]

Actus Reus: Damage

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

If no expense to return it to its original position, there is probably no damage.

A spat at policeman. In court, coat produced showing faint mark where spit had landed and argued required dry cleaning. Concluded probably going to be possible to wipe with a damp cloth and so no damage had occurred.

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

Hardman v Chief Constable Avon & Somerset [1986]

Actus Reus: Damage

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

Doesn’t need to be permanent to constitute damage – if expense and effort required to rectify -

Defendants painted silhouettes on a pavement. Grafitti squad had to be called to use high pressure hoses to remove them.

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

Roe v Kingerlee [1986]

Actus Reus: Damage

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

If expense is required, could be damage.

Smeared mud on walls of police cell. Cost to remove it was £7 – held to constitute damage.

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

Morphitis v Salmon [1990]

Actus Reus: Damage

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

If no impairment of its value or usefulness, will not be damage.

Scratching off a scaffold bar did not impair its value/use.

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

R v Fiak [2005]

Actus Reus: Damage

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

Temporary uselessness counts as damage.

Fiak stuffed a towel down the toilet and kept flushing until floor was flooded. Towel was washable and floor was waterproof, but cell was temporarily useless

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

R v Whiteley [1991]

Actus Reus: Property

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

Property must be tangible. Information is not property

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

Actus Reus: Belonging to Another

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A
  • Property must belong to another - CDA 1971 s 10(2)
    • A) having custody or control of it
    • B) having in it a proprietary right or interest
    • C) having a charge on it
  • Can belong to more than 1 person
  • If property is mortgaged will belong to bank or mortgage company – s10(2)(c)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Mens Rea

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

Intent or recklessness as to destroying or damaging such property

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

R v Maloney [1985]

Mens Rea: Intention

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A
  • intention is to be given its ordinary meaning.
  • Therefore, at the time he carried out the actus reus, was it the defendant’s aim or purpose to destroy or damage the property belonging to another?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R v G [2003]

Mens Rea: Recklessness

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A
  • To convict a person of reckless criminal damage, the prosecution must prove that:
    • At the time of committing the actus reus, the accused was subjectively aware of a risk; and
    • In the circumstances known to him, it was objectively unreasonable for the accused to take that risk.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Chief Constable of Somerset and Avon v Shimmen [1986]

Mens Rea: Recklessness

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

There has to be an element of social utility to the risk taken.

There was no social utility in what Shimmen was doing. Shimmen showing off martial arts skills to friends. Put his foot through window. Very small risk, but not worth taking as no social utility in it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q
A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Smith [1974]

Mens Rea: Summary

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A
  • D must know that the property belongs to another or realise that it might
    • Smith moved in with brother. DIY expert and wanted to improve sound system. Installed a lot of wiring.
    • When he moved out, ripped up all the floorboards/walls etc to remove wiring
    • Arrested and charged with criminal damage – said he put the floor and wiring in so belonged to him. However, as soon as he installed it, became part of the house by law.
    • Smith’s belief that the property was his, meant that he couldn’t have had the MR
  • AND
  • He must intend to damage or destroy that property or realise that his actions might result in such damage/destruction;
  • AND
  • (Where the prosecution is relying on recklessness) in the circumstances, the risk of damage to property must be an unreasonable one to take.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Defences - Without Lawful Excuse

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A
  • CDA 1971 s 5 -
    • Belief that the “owner” consented or would have consented had he known: s5(2)(a)
    • Belief that damage was necessary to protect other property, belonging to D or another: s5(2)(b)
17
Q

Jaggard v Dickinson [1980]

Defences - Consent - s5(2)(a)

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

The test for believing that the owner consented or would have consented is subjective.

Dickinson broke a window in the drunken belief that the house was that of a friend who she was staying with and had said she should treat as her own.

18
Q

R V Denton [1982]

Defences - Consent - s5(2)(a)

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

Provided the defendant honestly believes the owner of the property has or would have consented, the defendant’s motive is irrelevant.

Owner of property had said to D, ‘Nothing like a good fire for improving the financial circumstances of a business.’ D had taken that as an instruction to set factory on fire.

19
Q

Blake v DPP [1982]

Defences - Consent - s5(2)(a)

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

A belief that God consents to the damage will not work

20
Q

Defences: Protection of Property - s5(2)(b)

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A
  • There are 4 requirements for the s5(2)(b) defence:
    • D. acts in order to protect property
    • s5(2)(b)(i) - D. believes that the property is in immediate need of protection.
    • s5(2)(b)(ii) – Defendant believes that the means of protection adopted are reasonable in the circumstances.
    • The act was objectively capable of protecting the property.
21
Q

R v Baker & Wilkins

D acts in order to protect property

Defences: Protection of Property - s5(2)(b)

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

Can’t invoke s5(2)(b) when protecting a person

22
Q

Johnson v DPP

D believes that the property is in immediate need of protection

Defences: Protection of Property - s5(2)(b)

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A
  • D must believe that the property is in immediate need of protection.
  • Johnson was a squatter. Damaged a door whilst trying to fix locks to it. Claimed he was protecting his property from burglars but court found could not have believed his property was in immediate need of protection.
23
Q

R v Hunt [1977]

Act was objectively capable of protecting the property

Defences: Protection of Property - s5(2)(b)

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A
  • Set fire to bedding to demonstrate inadequacy of fire alarm. Alarm didn’t work and then called fire brigade to prove point.
  • CoA held was not objectively capable of protecting the property.
24
Q

R v Hill & Hall [1988]

Act was objetively capable of protecting the property

Defences: Protection of Property - s5(2)(b)

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A
  • Charged with S3. Found with hacksaw blade outside nuclear submarine base. Said were protecting property that was going to be bombed by nuclear submarine.
  • Court said not objectively capable of protecting that property.
25
Q

Blake v DPP [1982]

Act was objectively capable of protecting the property

Defences: Protection of Property - s5(2)(b)

Basic Criminal Damage: s 1(1) CDA 1971

A

Damaged concrete pillar saying he was protecting people in Gulf.

Not objectively capable of protecting people in Gulf.

26
Q

Aggravated Criminal Damage

s 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971

A

Actus Reus

  • Destroying or damaging
  • Property
  • Belonging to Defendant or another

Mens Rea

  • Intention or recklessness as to destroying or damaging property
  • AND
  • Intention or recklessness as to thereby the endangering life of another
  • Note: R v Sangha [1988] - no life need actually be endangered
27
Q

R v Sangha [1988]

Mens Rea

Intention or recklessness as to thereby the endangering life of another

Aggravated Criminal Damage

s 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971

A
  • No life need actually be endangered
    • Sangha set fire to furniture in a flat. Flat was empty and owing to construction of building, no life was endangered in adjoining flats. However, Sangha saw the risk of endangering the life of another so was reckless in going ahead
28
Q

R v Steer [1988]

Mens Rea

Intention or recklessness as to thereby the endangering life of another

Aggravated Criminal Damage

s 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971

A
  • The danger to life intended or foreseen must arise from the damage caused, not from the cause of the damage
  • Steer v angry with business partner, G – fired 3 shots at G’s home. No-one was hurt. Danger to life did not arise from the damage, but from the means of damage (firing bullet)
29
Q

R v Dudley [1989]

Mens Rea

Intention or recklessness as to thereby the endangering life of another

Aggravated Criminal Damage

s 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971

A
  • The danger to life intended or foreseen must arise from the damage caused, not from the cause of the damage
  • Dudley through a petrol bomb at the house. Family put out fire before caused more than minor damage. Dudley claimed was not guilty. Court said no danger to life need arise, but Dudley was reckless in regard to damage intended or foreseen by fire. He expected there to be a major fire, the damage from which could have endangered lives. Therefore, guilty.
30
Q

R v Webster [1995]

Mens Rea

Intention or recklessness as to thereby the endangering life of another

Aggravated Criminal Damage

s 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971

A
  • Webster and friends pushed a stone off a bridge onto train below. All 3 charged with aggravated criminal damage. Court substituted a conviction based on recklessness.
    • Judge said that if defendants intended stone to directly kill a passenger or if reckless to that outcome, this section would not apply.
    • If the defendant intended or was reckless to the stone smashing through the roof so that meal or wood struts from the roof might descend and injure passengers, and endangering life, he would be guilty.
31
Q

Arson - CDA 1971 s 1(3)

A
  • “Any offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson”
  • Difference for this offence and other forms of criminal damage is must be caused by fire
  • MR – Intention or recklessness as to damage or destruction by fire
32
Q

Threats to Destroy or Damage Property

S2 CDA 1971

A

Actus Reus

  • Makes a threat to another person to (a) destroy or damage 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 a third person.

Mens Rea

  • Intending that the other would fear that the threat would be carried out
33
Q

Possession with intent to destroy or damage property

S3 CDA 1971

A

Actus Reus

  • A person has anything in his custody or control.

Mens Rea

  • Intending 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.

Criminal (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions