criminal damage - property offences

Question 1

lawful excuse?

Answer 1

each offence must be committed without lawful excuse but the act states two lawful excuses could form a complete defence to a charge under s1(1) and to a simple offence of arson, but would not apply to the aggravated offence under s1(2) or aggravated arson.

Question 2

R v Dudley (1989)

Answer 2

defendant threw a petrol bomb at a house. the actus and the mens rea were established as he threw the petrol bomb at the house and that he intended to endanger life by fire damage.

Question 3

what is aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 3

a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property whether belonging to themselves or another: intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and 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.

Question 4

section 1(2) aggravated criminal damage

Answer 4

fit this offence, damage can be to any property and the aggravating factor is that the offence involved endangering life by damage to the property.

Question 5

R v G and another (2003)

Answer 5

the defendants were two boys who set fire to newspapers under a wheelie bin. the fire spread to other shops and buildings. They were convicted under s1 and 3 of the criminal damage act. the house of lord quashed the conviction stating the should have been subjective. -this case overruled the objective test from R v Caldwell (1982) in favour of the subjective test from R v Cunningham (1957)

Question 6

what do the courts do if the defendant has acted recklessly?

Answer 6

the courts apply a subjective test by asking: did the actual defendant realise the risk and decide to take the risk? which was applied in R v G and another (2003)

Question 7

what is the mens rea of criminal damage?

Answer 7

the mens rea of criminal damage is the intention to cause damage or destroy property rather than committing an act that caused damage.

Question 8

R v Fiak (2005)

Answer 8

a prisoner blocked the toilet in his police station cell and became flooded, causing damage to the blanket and the cells, which could not be used until clean and dry. (damage can be temporary)

Question 9

what happens if the damage caused is only temporary?

Answer 9

it wont prevent a conviction, but the cost and effort to restore the property will be taken into account.

Question 10

what is the maximum sentence for criminal damage?

Answer 10

10 years of imprisonment.

Question 11

what is the actus reus of criminal damage?

Answer 11

the actus reus of criminal damage consists of damaging or destroying property belonging to another.

Question 11

who decides whether or not the property has been damaged?

Answer 11

the jury.

Question 12

what is the basic offence of criminal damage under section 1(1)?

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

whats wrong with the actus reus?

Answer 13

it can be interpreted widely

Question 14

what one limitation of the definition of damage?

Answer 14

the definition of damage can include even temporary damage where the victim will incur any cost, which does not seem fair.

Question 15

why is it an issue if the definition of damage is not defined in the statute?

Answer 15

it is left up to the courts to decide which can lead to inconsistency.

Question 16

what is a strength of the mens rea of criminal damage?

Answer 16

it could be argued that the Mens rea of criminal damage has been improved through inclusion of the subjective test as the defendant themselves mist have foreseen the risk of destroying or damaging property and gone on to take it creating greater levels of fairness within the law.