Property Offences - Criminal damage & Fraud Flashcards
S.2 Fraud Act 2006
Fraud by false representation
False representation
D made a representation which was false - dishonesty
S.11 Fraud Act 2006
Dishonest obtaining of services
S.4 Fraud Act 2006
Fraud by abuse of position
S.3(1) Theft Act 1978
Making off without payment
3 Criminal Damage offences
S.1(1) “Simple” CR
S.1(2) “Aggravated” CR
S.1(3) Arson
S.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 defintion
- Simple CR; 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.
AR/MR of S.1 CDA 1971
AR: Damages or destroys, property belonging to another
MR: Intentionally, or recklessly, without lawful excuse
Destroys meaning
CPA guidance; make sure you can prove the destruction otherwise, damaging property is the more appropriate choice
What is damage?
Gayford v Ghouler (1898)
Damage - matter of fact & degree
- Roe v Kingerlee (1986)
- Blake v DPP (1993)
Damage can be temporary or permanent
Hardman v CC of Avon & Somerset (1986)
A v R (1978)
Damage; “temporary impairment of value or usefulness”
Fiak (2005)
Impact on value or usefulness
Morphitis v Salmon (1990) - Auld J “damage…should be widely interpreted so as to conclude not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness”
Examples…
Tracey (1821)
Henderson & Batley (1984)
Fisher (1865)
Are animals property
Cresswell & Currie (2006)
s.10 interpretation
Property shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as belonging to any person—
(a) having the custody or control of it;
(b) in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or
(c) having a charge on it.
Can D criminally damage jointly owned property?
Yes
Intention
R v Smith (1974) - D must intend to destroy or damage property belonging to another
Recklessly (subjective test)
R v G (2004)
s.5 Criminal Damage Act 1971
“without lawful excuse”
s.5(2) - (3) what amounts to lawful excuse?
s.5(2)(a) belief in consent
s.5(2)(b) Property at risk and in need of immediate protection & what D did was reasonable in all the circumstances
s.5(3) Honest belief in lawful excuse
S.5(3) Honest belief in lawful excuse
Blake v DPP (1993)
S.2(2)(a)
Belief in consent of owner - Denton (1982) Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)
S.5(2)(b) Subjective Test
Belief that other property in need of protection
Subjective test: did D believe that the property was in need of protection and that means used were reasonable?
Objective Test
Could D’s acts be said to be preformed in order to protect the property (based on the facts as D believed them to be)?
s.5(2)(b) Belief that the other property in need of protection
Mitchell (2004)
Greenpeace (2000)
Hunt (1978)
s.5(2)(b) Belief that other property in need of protection not an act of anger/fustration
Kelleher (2003)
Clear causal link required
Ashford & Smith (1988)
What about banksy?
Do graffiti artists lack MR? or do they have a lawful excuse?
Criminal Damage & Protestors
Just stop oil - Van Gogh painting
Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2022) (2022) – the “Colston Four”
Article 9 of ECHR
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10
Freedom of expression
Article 11 of ECHR
Freedom of assembly & association
AG’s Reference (No.1 of 2022)
If ‘significant damage’ were caused during a protest, prosecution and conviction would be beyond the Convention’s protection because either the conduct was not peaceful or the prosecution and conviction would clearly be proportionate.
A judge could not direct a jury to convict, but a judge could withdraw an issue from the jury if no reasonable jury—properly directed—could convict
Is there a good defence?
If significant damage was caused during a protest, prosecution and conviction would be beyond the conventions protection because either the conduct was no peaceful or the prosecution and conviction would be disproportionate
Aggravated Criminal Damage s.1(2) CDA 1971
s.1(2)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another –
(a) Intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and
Aggravated Criminal Damage s.1(2) CDA 1971- Part B
b) 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.
Aggravated Criminal Damage
Does not require the “belonging to another” aspect
MR: requires it to be without lawful excuse and reckless as to whether another’s life is endangered
Danger to life
Steer (1988)
- link between damage to property and danger to life
- Cf. Webster (1995)
- Warwick (1995)
Arson; s.1(3)
An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson
AR of Arson
- Damages or destroys
- Property
- Belonging to another
- By fire
MR of Arson
- Intentionally
- or Recklessly
- Without lawful excuse
Arson case
Miller (1983)
