Fire - raising (crime against property)

Question 1

Blane v HMA 1991

Answer 1

• Set fire to bedding – but building caught firre- He did not intend to set re to building- Mens rea must extend to all material; evidences the confussion these historic distinctions caused in modern times when moveable property was set alight wilfully leading to the destruction of heritable property (which was not the intention of the accused).Held, where an accused was charged with wilful fire raising, in that he had set fire to bedding in his room in a hostel and the fire took effect on the premises, and where the sheriff charged the jury that it was not necessary for the Crown to prove that the fire was set directly to the premises provided that the burning of any part of the premises resulted from the deliberate act of setting fire to an article, such as bedding, that the sheriff had misdirected the jury by failing to direct them to consider the likely consequences of the accused’s action in setting fire to the bedding, and whether these displayed at least an utter indifference to the likelihood that the fire would spread to the building; and verdict of guilty of wilful fire raising set aside and verdict of guilty of setting fire to the bedding wilfully substituted.

Question 2

Byrne v HMA 2000

Answer 2

clarity was restored with the 5 judges decision, Byrne reviewed the authorities to restate the law - highlighting that MR was key to determining the appropriate charge rather than the type of property involved. Wilful FR - ‘deliberate, intentional setting fire to property named in the charge’ (fire floor spread to bed and caused damage to the building); Culpable and reckless FR - Lord Caulsfied at 9213, in relation to culpable and reckless fire-raising “The difference from wilful fire raising lies in the MR. Mere negligence is not enough; the property must have been set on fire due to an act of the accused displaying a reckless disregard as to what the result of his act would be”(ie reckless as to consequences of the initial action/s). The accused charged with the wilful fire raising of a building by setting fire to paper, whereby the building caught fire.

Question 3

McCue v Currie 2004

Answer 3

(looking for sth in caravan using his lighter as a torch dropped - set fire, burn down; convicted wilfull fire-raising, left caravan not doing anything, decision reversed, accidental not the same as wilful.

Question 4

Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1995 s 7(8)(b)(i)

Answer 4

check fire raising

Question 5

Consolidation (S) Act 1995 s 52(2)

Answer 5

wilful fire-raising cannot be charged as vandalism (as it is a separate crime)