Property Destruction Flashcards
- DPP v Cooper [2015] IEHC 240 -
Defendant defaced headstones in Cemetery. Prosecution had no true owner or value of damage. CCA - Property - ‘capable of bearing a number of different meanings’, something does not need to have a clear owner to be classified as property under s.1.
Ouantum of damages need no be proven also.
- Gayfor v Chouler (1898) 1 0B 316 -
Defendants were asked to walk on pavement and not grass, however they refused and damaged grass which was about to be cut. The damage was minimal and would likely recover, however, the court rules that trampling on grass amounted to damage.
Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48 -
A scaffold pole was scratched by the defendant. Court said it was not criminal damage as it was an ordinary incident of its existence and did not reduce its usefulness or value.
- R v Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 238] -
Can be temporary impairment. Defendant flooded his cell.
Court found even though the cell could be used again temporary impairment of value or
S
usefulness amounted to criminal damage.
- Samuels v Stubbs [1974] 4 SASR 200 (Australia). -.
Defendant stamped on the Police officer’s cap. ‘It is necessary to establish such definite or actual damage as renders the property useless or
Swap Think;
prevents it from forming its normal function
- DPP v Murray [1977] IR 360 - (
Subjective recklessness approach adopted in Ireland). Endorsed the meaning of recklessness in the US - A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offence when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves culpability of a high degree.’
People (DPP) v McGrath -.
However, this case restated on our position, which is one of subjectivity. Courts were clear on this. Defendant must see the risk that they are running. ‘For the
iSW.
state of recklessness. an element of advertence is required? i.e. the prosecution must prove that the accused actually realised that his conduct might bause the damage to another person’s
%
property. If the accused can prove/convince the jury that they did not see the risk or did not stop to think about risk then they will not meet the required element of means rea in recklessness
Elliott v C [1983] 2 ALL ER 1005 -
D was 14 and had learning difficulties. She was out all night (sleep deprived) and lit a fire in a shed to keep warm). First instance found it difficult to convict
0 g
Finish uodate
her for obvious reasons and stated that D had not given the risk any thought and even if she did, would be unable to appreciate the risk. CA -> If the risk was obvious to the reasonable person, then her being or limited intelligence or exhausted is not a defence.
R v G and R [2003] 4 ALL ER 765 -
11 & 12 year olds set fire to a wheelie bin which then set fire to the supermarket (£1million pound damage). Questions posed about whether someone be convicted if they would not be able to perceive the risk. Complete turnaround here, a return to the subjective test. They found that convicting the boys would be unlawful.
%
- Court gave two reasons for this
(i Caldwell infringes an important principle in criminal law - The principle that someone is only guilty if they have a guilty mind. It is not clearly blameworthy to do something involving a risk of injury to another if one does not perceive the risk.
今
(it The objective test is unfair - especially on children. They do not have the ability to
conceptualise risk.
- Rv G and R [2003] 4 ALL ER 765 -
Generally intoxication is not a defence. You are deemed reckless if you voluntarily become intoxicated. You are also deemed reckless if the risk was one you would have foreseen if sober.
Defence of Lawful Excuse.
S.6(2)(a) - If the person who damaged the property believed that the person(s) whom he believed to be entitled to consent or authorise the damage to the property had consented, or would have
consented to the damage had they known of the circumstances.
- S.6(2)(c) - If the person who damaged or threatened to damage the property did so in order to protect (i) himself (i)another (in)property belonging to himself (iv)property belonging to another, and the acts) alleged to constitute the offence were reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.
Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] 2 WLR 118 -
D broke into a house when drunk. She smashed the window after her key did not work, it did not work as she had the wrong house. She believed that her friend would have consented to the act. (Intoxicated belief). Court had to consider her honest belief i.e. the belief she was under at the time. - This is not a mens rea question about
recklessness
- Rv Denton [19811 1 WLR 1446 -
Owner of the property consented to fire damage as to claim insurance. However, more damage than what the owner consented to was done. D could not be criminally charged here as as there was consent to damage the property. You could argue that
- R v Kelleher [2003] EWCA 3525 -
Decapitated Margaret Thatcher statue under (c). HC -> Directed Jury to convict as defence was not available. CA -> Judge should never direct jury to convict. However, defence of lawful excuse not available here. There was not protection here, it was too vague/broad.
-DPP v Mary Kelly [2011] IECCA 25 -
Mary argued she destroyed the plane to prevent the direct action of bombing on innocent towns in Irag. Circuit Court -> “the social anarchy… would prevail if people were allowed to take the law into their own hands’. Appeal - Was not interested in the defence. There used to be a temporal factor but then the Act was amended. Judge stripped the amendment from the act and said the defendant was require to prove an immediate time period of the bombing, which she could not do. CCA -> Hardiman J, very critical of this, Quashed the conviction, not sure if it was frustration or innocence.
