Malicious Mischief (Crime against property)

Question 1

Malicious Mischief

Answer 1

Hume - physical damge to the property in tandem with some evidence of civil disorder - Hume ‘riotous and wilful’; Hume’s secondary def - ‘intentional or willful damage to, or destruction of corporeal property belonging to another without their consent’ where civil disorder is absent

Question 2

Glass of Sauchie v Monro of Auchinbowie (1713) Hume, I, 122

Answer 2

=> Stocking up a damn to allow water to trickle down to their property
=> Thought they were allowed to do so
=> No malice so held not MM

MALICIOUS MISCHIEF; the accuser had destroyed a number of different of dams and holding back water. The release of water destroyed machinery in mill. The court held that actions were interference with a property rights and violated the Jewish order and tranquility of society. AR- interference with a property right violating ‘the due regard to the order and tranquility of society’

Question 3

Ward v Robertson 1938

Answer 3

Three accused were charged with malicious mischief for walking across a grass field where sheep were grazing. The “damage” was to the grass itself, the walking having, allegedly, rendered it unfit for consumption by sheep. The court doubted the requirement for ‘great’ damage and also held that recklessness/malice are alternative and further forms of MR for traditional MM;

Question 4

Clark v Syme 1957

Answer 4

Ward was approved, shot a sheep belonging to the neighbouring farmer because was walking across his land. he was convicted on appeal

Question 5

Lord Advocate’s Ref (No 1 of 2000) 2001 SCCR 296

Answer 5

confirmed that an act carried out under a mistaken conception of legal rights (error) is not a defence to MM but necessity could be a defence - se [109] in particular

Question 6

HMA v Wilson 1984

Answer 6

(modern law) In Wilson,the accused activated an emergency stop button at Hunterston B power station.This stopped electricity being fed into the national grid for 28 hours leading tolosses of around £147,000. All that the accused had done was to press thebutton. The court held that, because this had been done maliciously, andbecause it had caused patrimonial loss, this was sufficient to satisfy therequirements of the crime

Question 7

Bett v Brown 1997

Answer 7

B was charged with malicious mischief in that he moved a bank’s security camera so that the area intended to be covered was not in fact under surveillance. B entered a plea to the relevancy of the charge as no patrimonial loss had been averred. The sheriff repelled the plea on the ground that the bank had suffered the loss of the benefit of proper surveillance.
Held, allowing the appeal, that an intention to cause physical damage or patrimonial loss was required where the offence of malicious mischief was charged. It was an unwarranted extension of the concept of patrimonial loss to include circumstances where the costs of running the camera would have been incurred anyway and the benefit lost entailed no financial loss. Opinion of the Court per Lord Sutherland.
in this case there was no patrimonial loss so the charge of MM was irrelevant (the accused shimmied up a CCTV pole and turn the camera round (bank) - another direction, the court held that as there was no pecuniar or physical loss - charge not relevant