Recklessness and Criminal Damage and Causation and Acts and Omissions Flashcards
Criminal Damage Act 1971 – p.56
s.1 = Reckless as to criminal damage in this case under s.1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971:
Consequence = damaged property
Circumstance = belongs to someone
Conduct = you must do something that results in damage
vs. lawful excuse [consent, or believed consent, or protection]
Recklessness
G and R test for recklessness = circumstance, so aware of the risk, took it anyway, and it was not reasonable to do so.
vs. Parker – Wilfully blind = closed off mind to the risk, but on some level, you are still aware of it
Causation - factual
Factual causation = ‘but for’ what D did, would the consequence have been the same, if yes, failed test, no criminal liability – Dalloway
– Broughton – Must be certain of death
Causation - legal
significant + salient [not too remote + opertaing – no break in the chain of causation]
No breaks in the chain of causation
– Reasonably foreseeable events is not a break in the chain = Harlot’s case
– Non-independent interventions by the victim do not break the chain of causation [Robert’s]
– Intervention by non-medical third parties = Pagett
– Medical interventions = Jordan
+ You must take V as you find them = Blaue
Breaks in the chain of causation
– Independent intervention by the victim if free, deliberate, informed then the chain to be broken = Kennedy
= if not free and informed then no break in the chain = Field + Rebelo
Acts and Omissions
Breach of care
Pittwood = breach of contractual duty
Stone & Robinson = voluntary assumption of a duty
Miller = creation of a dangerous situation
Essay Questions
Advantages and disadvantages of recklessness and criminal damage
+ causation
- Broughton too harsh
- G and R test with third limb or Cunningham two step when applied in OAPA
- broad excuses for criminal damage to protect yours or someone else’s property or with consent, or beleived consent
