Criminal Damage and Arson

Question 1

Maximum sentence for basic criminal damage

Answer 1

10 years imprisonment

Question 2

Basic criminal damage

Answer 2

Actus Reus:
- Destroy or damage
- Property
- Belonging to another
- Without lawful excuse

Mens Rea:
- Intention or recklessness as to the damage or destruction of property belonging to another

Question 3

Actus reus: destroy or damage

Answer 3

Destroy: property ceases to exist
Damage: question of fact and degree

• Need not be permanent (graffiti even it washes off is damage)
• Mud on walls of police cell which cost £7 to remove was damage
• stuffing blanket down toilet and flood cell WAS criminal damage even though floor was waterproof and blanket washable as both were temporarily unusable
• Criminal damage is not only permanent or temporary physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness.

Not:
- spitting on a policeman’s raincoat was not criminal damage, argued spit could be wiped away with cloth and coat would be in original state

Question 4

Actus reus: property

Answer 4

Means property of tangible nature whether real or personal including money and wild creatures which have been tamed or kept in captivity and any other wild creatures or carcasses SO LONG AS not lost or abandoned

Does not include mushrooms , fruit or foliage growing wild on any land

Information is not property.

Question 5

Actus reus: belonging to another

Answer 5

Property is treated as belonging to any person:
- having custody or control of it;
- having in it any proprietary right or interest
- having charge of it

Property can belong to more than one person. Where D owns property is can still belong to another such as a co-owner. If mortgaged will also belong to the bank.

Question 6

Mens rea for basic criminal damage

Answer 6

Intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another.

Intention is given ordinary meaning:
- whether at the time D carried out the actus reus it was D’s aim or purpose to destroy or damage the property belonging to another.

Recklessness:

1) at the time of committing the actus reus the accused was subjectively aware of the risk
2) in the circumstances known to the accused it was objectively unreasonable for the accused to take that risk

Note: mens rea must extend to the whole of the actus reus. Insufficient that D does an act that damages property intentionally. Must prove that D knew or was reckless as to whether the property belonged to another.
honest or mistaken belief that the property is his own (provided belief is honest) - irrelevant to consider whether or not it is a justifiable belief.

Question 7

Basic Arson

Answer 7

Actus reus:
- destroy or damage by fire
- property
- belonging to another
- without lawful excuse

Mens rea:
intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another by fire

Question 8

Defences to basic criminal damage

Answer 8

Two lawful excuses:

1) Where the defendant believes that the owner would have consented to the damage; and

2) operates where the defendant acts to protect their or another’s property

Question 9

Defendant believes owner would have consented

Answer 9

• needs to be honestly held, it does not matter whether belief is justified
• mistaken belief due to voluntary intoxication: still entitled to the defence irrespective of whether the belief was reasonable even where it resulted from the defendant’s intoxication.

Motive is irrelevant (even where motive is to perpetrate fraud) - so long as defendant honestly believes that the owner of the property would have consented to the damage (eg burning down factory because believed owner would have agreed to claim insurance)

Note: that God would have consented is NOT an excuse

Question 10

D acts to protect property

Answer 10

Must be to protect their own or another’s property. Section relates only to property NOT other people
- woman did not have defence when she kicked down door to save child (but may have had defence if she did it rescue a pet)

4 requirements:
1) Defendant must act to protect property
2) Must believe the property was in IMMEDIATE need of protection (subjective test)
3) Defendant must believe that the means of protection adopted are reasonable
4) Damage caused by the defendant must be objectively capable of protecting the property

Note: starting a fire to prove inadequacy of fire alarms is not objectively capable of protecting the property

Must not be too remote - damaging property in protest to ultimately protect property (own in nuclear strike or property in Gulf states) was too remote

Question 11

Other lawful excuses to criminal damage

Answer 11

Can use general defences such as duress and self-defence

Question 12

Aggravated Criminal Damage

Answer 12

Actus reus:
- destroy or damage (by fire)
- property

Mens rea:
- intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property
- intention or recklessness as to the endangerment of life by the damage or destruction by fire

Note:
- Defendant can commit aggravated criminal damage to own property
- lawful excuses do not apply
- irrelevant whether the life of another was actually endangered

Question 13

Aggravated criminal damage: mens rea

Answer 13

• Intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property (by fire)
• Intention of recklessness as to the endangerment of life by the damage or destruction (by fire)

Just needs life to maybe be endangered does not actually need to have been endangered.

The danger to life must arise from the damaged property - Must be a causal link between the damage to property and danger to life (not enough that the damage occurs from the means of damaging it)
Note: if the damage is caused by fire, the risk to life will always be from the damaged property.