Criminal Unit 7 SBAQs Flashcards
Which of the following is not an element of the actus reus of criminal damage under s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971?
A. Destroys or damages
B. Property belonging to another
C. Intending or being reckless as to the damage
D. Without lawful excuse
C is correct
Is the following statement true or false? Mushrooms are an example of ‘property’ as defined by the Criminal Damage Act 1971
FALSE
See section 10 of the Act. Property does not include mushrooms (or indeed flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant) growing wild on any land.
Which of the following best describes the mens rea required for the offence of simple criminal damage contrary to s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971?
A. The defendant intends to destroy or damage property belonging to another.
B. The defendant is reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another.
C. The defendant intends or is reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another.
D. The defendant intends or is reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another and knows or believes that the property belongs to another.
D is correct
The defendant intends or is reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another and knows or believes that the property belongs to another.
Which of the following describes the test for recklessness in criminal damage?
A. The defendant was aware of the risk of damage or destruction and unreasonably took it.
B. The defendant is only liable if the risk of criminal damage is significant.
C. The defendant should have been aware of the risk of damage or destruction.
D. The reasonable person would have been aware of the risk of at least some damage.
A is correct
The test for recklessness is subjective, so the defendant must be aware of the risk of damage or destruction and unreasonably take that risk. Option B is wrong as any risk of causing criminal damage is sufficient for a conviction - there is no need for the risk to be a significant one. Options C and D are different ways of formulating an objective test and both are wrong.
In order to establish the defence of lawful excuse under s.5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, it is immaterial whether the defendant’s belief is justified provided it is honestly held. Is this true or false?
TRUE
Is the following statement true or false? A defendant can only commit the actus reus of aggravated criminal damage if the damage or destruction is to property belonging to another.
FALE
A defendant can be liable for the aggravated offence even if they have damaged their own property.
Which one of the following statements concerning the comparison between simple and aggravated criminal damage is correct?
A. Both offences have exactly the same actus reus.
B. For the offence of aggravated criminal damage it is necessary to show that the property damaged was more valuable.
C. For the aggravated offence there is an additional requirement of mens rea that the defendant by the destruction or damage endangered the life of another.
D. For the aggravated offence there is an additional requirement of mens rea that the defendant by the destruction or damage intended to endanger the life of another or was reckless as to whether the life of another would thereby be endangered.
D is correct
D is correct as this is referring to the required ulterior mens rea for the s.1(2) offence of aggravated criminal damage. Although the actus reus for both the offences are similar, the property damaged or destroyed for the more serious s.1(2) offence need not necessarily belong to another, so option A is wrong. The value of the property damaged or destroyed is immaterial so option B is also wrong. There is no requirement that life is actually endangered and in any event this does not refer to a mens rea concept so option C is wrong.
The defence of lawful excuse under s.5(2)(a) and (b) only applies to simple criminal damage or arson. Is this statement true or false?
TRUE
The defence of lawful excuse does not apply to aggravated criminal damage or arson.
Jasmine is employed as a health care assistant in a care home for elderly people. She is concerned that the fire alarm does not work properly and so she sets fire to some bedding to draw attention to the issue. At her trial, Jasmine pleads not guilty on the basis that she was acting in order to protect property.
Is it true or false that Jasmine is judged solely on whether she personally believes she was acting to protect property.
FALSE
An objective test is applied to the phrase ‘in order to protect property’ under s.5(2)(b). Here, the defendant’s act was not carried out in order to protect property; it was done to draw attention to the defective state of the fire alarm. Thus, Jasmine will fail in her defence of lawful excuse.
Arriving home from work, Farah is confronted by Malaika with whom she has had an argument. Malaika picks up some rocks from the garden and throws them at Farah and her house, breaking one of the windows. Farah immediately grabs a plant pot from her neighbour’s front garden and hurls it towards Malaika. The pot smashes on the ground and Malaika runs off.
Which ONE or MORE of the following may provide a defence for Farah to a charge of criminal damage to the plant pot?
A. The defence of reasonable use of force under s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
B. The defence of lawful excuse under s.5(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 – honest belief that the owner would consent.
C. The defence of lawful excuse under s.5(2)(b) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 – honest belief that property was in immediate need of protection and the means she used were reasonable.
A, B and C are correct
Section 76 of the CJIA 2008, as referred to in option A, allows a person to use reasonable force in self-defence and to prevent the commission of a crime. Here, Farah is responding to Malaika throwing rocks at her and breaking her window. In these circumstances, hurling a plant pot back is a reasonable use of force.
The Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides two specific defences of ‘lawful excuse’ as in options B and C. Both of these are potentially relevant here as Farah may well have honestly believed that her neighbour would consent to the damage to their plant pot in the circumstances and/or that her house was in immediate need of protection and that the means she used were reasonable.
A woman lives with her mother at her mother’s house. She has left her key at work. On returning home she looks through the front window and is horrified to see her mother lying on the floor, with a piece of coal from the fire smouldering on the carpet by her side. The woman grabs a large stone that she finds in the garden, smashes the window and climbs into the house. She picks up the coal and throws it back into the fire, before telephoning for an ambulance. Her mother is admitted to hospital and makes a full recovery.
Has the woman committed an offence of simple criminal damage in these circumstances?
A. No, provided the court is satisfied that a reasonable person in the woman’s position would have acted in the same way to save her mother.
B. No, because the woman honestly believed that the property was in immediate danger and the damage was reasonable in the circumstances.
C. No, because the woman may rely upon the defence of lawful excuse as a reasonable person would have consented to the damage had they known of the circumstances.
D. Yes, because the woman intentionally damaged property belonging to her mother.
E. Yes, because the woman has recklessly damaged property belonging to another and is aware that the property belongs to her mother.
B is correct
The correct answer is option B as the woman honestly believed – a subjective test – that the property (the house) was in immediate danger from the piece of coal and smashing the window was reasonable in these circumstances.
Option A is wrong as the court will decide – objectively – what the defendant’s purpose was under s 5(2)(b) of the CDA 1971 and this must be to protect property (and not to save her mother). To establish the defence of lawful excuse under s 5(2)(a) of the CDA 1971, the woman’s belief need only be an honest one (subjective) so option C is wrong.
Option D is wrong because although the woman did intentionally cause criminal damage, she will be able to rely on the defence of lawful excuse. Option E is wrong as the defendant intentionally, rather than recklessly, damaged her mother’s property as she smashed the window deliberately.
A woman and a man are sitting in a library studying together. The woman is bored and decides to play a practical joke on the man. When the man leaves the desk they are working at to make a coffee, the woman super-glues his laptop mouse to the table, to make it temporarily unusable. The woman does not foresee the risk of more permanent damage being done to the mouse, but appreciates the risk of some temporary damage being caused. It is clear and obvious to the other students in the library, who saw the woman playing her joke, that there was a risk of damage. When the man returns to find that his mouse is damaged beyond repair, he decides to get his revenge by throwing his coffee over the woman’s papers. The man misses the papers but some of the coffee drips down onto his laptop cable, causing damage.
Which of the following statements best describes the woman and man’s potential liability for simple criminal damage?
A. The woman and man cannot be liable because they both lack the necessary mens rea for criminal damage.
B. The woman is liable because she intended to damage the mouse and the man is also liable by virtue of the doctrine of transferred malice.
C. The woman is liable because the other students in the library could see that there was an obvious risk of damage. The man can also be liable for damaging property belonging to himself.
D. The woman is not liable because she only intended to play a practical joke. The man cannot be liable because the computer cable belongs to him.
E. The woman is liable because she foresees a risk of damage to the mouse, whereas the man cannot be liable because the computer cable belongs to him.
E is correct
option E is correct as the woman damages property belonging to another and she foresees the risk of causing damage to the man’s mouse. The man cannot be guilty of simple criminal damage where the property in question belongs to him.
Option A is wrong because they both have mens rea since the woman was reckless when damaging the man’s mouse, and the man intended to damage the woman’s papers (so this mens rea can be transferred in principle to the other damage caused).
Option B is wrong because although the woman has mens rea, the doctrine of transferred malice is not relevant to the man. This is because he cannot be guilty of simple criminal damage despite his intention, as the computer cable belongs to him.
Option C is wrong as the test for recklessness for the woman is a subjective one. Moreover, the man cannot be liable for damaging property belonging to him.
Options D is wrong. Although the woman did not have direct intent to damage the mouse, she was reckless in doing so, because we are told she foresees the risk of causing damage to the man’s mouse. The statement in relation to the man’s lack of liability is, however, correct.
A man demolishes a wall which his neighbour has built on her own land. The man honestly believes that it is necessary for him to do this in order to protect a right of vehicular access which his property enjoys across his neighbour’s land; and that if he does not do this immediately, his ability to enforce this right will be prejudiced.
Is the man likely to be liable for simple criminal damage?
A. No, because the man has not committed the necessary actus reus.
B. Yes, because the man has the necessary mens rea.
C. No, because the man is likely to have a defence of lawful excuse.
D. Yes, because the man has committed the necessary actus reus.
E. No, because the man does not have the necessary mens rea.
C is correct
C is correct as whilst the man has intentionally damaged property belonging to another, he is likely to have a lawful excuse for his actions under section 5(2)(b) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This is because the man honestly believes he is protecting his access right.
Option A is partly correct as the man is not likely to be held liable for criminal damage, but he has committed the actus reus of the offence. This is not the best answer as the man is likely to have a defence of lawful excuse.
Options B and D are wrong as the man is likely to have a defence of lawful excuse. Furthermore, option E is wrong, because even though the man is not likely to be held liable for criminal damage (because he is likely to have a defence of lawful excuse) he does have the mens rea for this offence.
A woman returns home to find a new mobile phone on the kitchen table. The phone belongs to her mother’s friend, who is visiting. The woman unwraps it and starts trying out its new features. The phone becomes sticky, so she washes it in the sink. The phone is ruined by the exposure to water and no longer works. The woman believed that the phone was waterproof.
What is the woman’s liability for criminal damage?
A. There is no liability as the woman had a lawful excuse for damaging the phone.
B. There is no liability. Although she fulfils the mens rea for criminal damage there is no actus reus.
C. There is no liability. Although she fulfils the actus reus for criminal damage she does not have the mens rea.
D. There is no liability because she has neither the actus reus or mens rea for criminal damage.
E. There is liability because she fulfils the actus reus and the mens rea for criminal damage
C is correct
The woman has damaged property belonging to another so has fulfilled the actus reus for criminal damage. She lacks the mens rea of intention or recklessness as to damaging the property, as she did not foresee any risk of damaging the phone because she believed it was waterproof.
Options B, D and E are therefore all wrong because she does complete the actus reus but does not have the mens rea for criminal damage.
Option A is wrong because the defence of lawful excuse is not available to her as she did not reasonably believe she had the owner’s consent or that she was acting to protect the property from immediate damage.
A man breaks into a houseboat to spend the night there, as he is too drunk to make it home to his own house. The man mistakenly believes that the houseboat belongs to his best friend. He reasonably and honestly believes his best friend would not mind him breaking in at all, given that he is too drunk to make it home or to remember where his best friend hides the spare key (which the man has used on previous occasions to access the houseboat). However, due to his intoxication, the man breaks into the wrong houseboat. The houseboat belongs to his best friend’s neighbour. When his friend discovers that the man damaged the door and smashed a window to get into the houseboat, he is very angry. He tells the Police he would not have given the man permission to break in under any circumstances.
Can the man rely on the defence of lawful excuse to the charge of criminal damage?
A. Yes, he can rely on the defence of lawful excuse because he honestly believed his friend would consent to him breaking in.
B. Yes, he can rely on the defence of lawful excuse because he reasonably believed that his friend would consent to him breaking in.
C. No, he cannot rely on the defence of lawful excuse as he has made a mistake because he is involuntary intoxicated.
D. No, he cannot rely on the defence of lawful excuse because it is not his friend’s houseboat.
E. No, he cannot rely on the defence of lawful excuse because his friend says that he would never have consented to him breaking in.
A is correct
option A is the correct answer because a defendant only has to have an honest belief that the owner would consent not a reasonable belief and this is not impacted by intoxication.
Option B is the wrong answer because the belief only needs to be honest, not reasonable. Option C is wrong because making a mistake about a belief under lawful excuse due to the defendant’s intoxication, does not deprive the defendant of the lawful excuse defence.
Option D is wrong because it is what the defendant honestly believes that is at the heart of the defence not the actual reality of the situation, and here he believes it is his friend’s houseboat.
Option E is wrong because the defence is based on whether the defendant honestly believes the owner would consent not whether they did or would consent.
