Webcast

Question 0

What is the AR of simple criminal damage?

Answer 0

Destruction or damage or property belonging to another.

Question 1

What is contained in s1(1) of the criminal damage act 1971?

Answer 1

That a person is liable for simple criminal damage if, without lawful excuse, he destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether it would be destroyed.

Question 2

What is the MR of simple criminal damage?

Answer 2

Intention to destroy or damage any such property or reckless as to do so.

Question 3

How is destruction or damage defined?

Answer 3

It is not defined in the act. Roe v Kingerlee said that it is a question of fact and degree and a matter of common sense for the magistrates or jury.

Question 4

Does damage caused have to be permanent?

Answer 4

No. A v R confirmed that property was not damaged unless it was rendered imperfect or inoperative.

Question 5

What does the court look at to determine if something has been damaged?

Answer 5

If effort and expense was required to put it right (Roe v Kingerlee - youth spat on officers jacket, it could be wiped clean); or
If the usefulness or value of the property was impaired (R v Flak - D flooded police cell but it couldn’t be used again until it had dried out). You must also bear in mind the nature of the property (scaffolding bar with a scratch will not impair its use (Salmon)).

Question 6

What does the criminal damage act 1971 define as property?

Answer 6

S10(1) says it means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal and includes money.

Question 7

What is the difference between property as defined in the criminal damage act and the theft act?

Answer 7

Under the theft act, property includes intangible property and under criminal damage act, land constitutes property.

Question 8

How does the criminal damage act 1971 define belonging to another as?

Answer 8

It belongs to another if a person has custody or control of it, any proprietary right or interest or has a charge on it.

Question 9

When is a defendant reckless according to the criminal damage act?

Answer 9

If and only if, he foresees or recognises a risk and goes on to take that risk in circumstances where it is unjustifiable to do so.

Question 10

What happened in the case of Pembliton?

Answer 10

He intentionally threw a stone at a man and missed hitting a window. Not enough for simple criminal damage as he intended to do one act that led to another.

Question 11

What if the D believed the property to be his and he damaged it?

Answer 11

He would not be liable (Smith).

Question 12

What is aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 12

S1(2) of the criminal damage act 1971 defines it as destroys or damages property, whether belonging to himself or another and he must intend or be reckless as to the destruction of or damage to the property. He must also intend to endanger the life of another by the destruction or damage or be reckless.

Question 13

What are e two main differences between simple and aggravated damage?

Answer 13

The property can belong to himself and endangering life.

Question 14

Does there have to be an actual danger to life?

Answer 14

No, he simply has to intend to do so or foresaw a risk (R v Parker - set fire to house while landlord was out which spread next door but they were also out).

Question 15

What is the principle set out in the case of Steer?

Answer 15

The destruction or damage had to endanger the life. In this case he fired a rifle at a window of a house, the danger to life was caused by the shot from the rifle and not by the damage done to the window.

Question 16

What is the test for aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 16

Subjective test (Cooper - set fire to mattress not believing he would endanger others, appeal allowed).

Question 17

What is arson defined as?

Answer 17

S1(3) of the criminal damage act 1971 provides that where an offence of criminal damage is committed by destroying or damaging property by fire, it shall be charged as arson.

Question 18

Is an offence of arson therefore simple or aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 18

Both, simple arson or aggravated arson.

Question 19

Why is it difficult for prosecutors to prove aggravated arson?

Answer 19

Following R v G the test is now subjective. R v Castle was convicted of aggravated arson, after R v G he appealed and it was substituted for simple arson as he did not know there were residential flats above.

Question 20

What general defences are available under statute or common law?

Answer 20

Duress or automatism.

Question 21

What lawful excuses are in s5 of the criminal damage act 1971?

Answer 21

Where he believes he has consent and where he believes he is protecting property but this only applies to simple criminal damage.

Question 22

Which part of the criminal damage act 1971 deals with consent and what does it say?

Answer 22

S5(2)(a) says they will have a lawful excuse if he believed the person who he thought could consent had done so or would have consented in the circumstances.

Question 23

What does s5(3) of the criminal damage act 1971 say?

Answer 23

The D’s belief in consent need not be justified, just honestly held.

Question 24

What is the case of R v Denton authority for?

Answer 24

If the D makes a mistake and thinks that the owner has consented to the damage when in fact he has not, the D may nevertheless have a lawful excuse.

Question 25

What does the case of Jaggard v Dickinson confirm?

Answer 25

That all that is required is an honest belief. Drunk friend smashes window of friends house to get in as believed she had consent, was wrong house. Even though intoxicated she could rely on s5(3), conviction quashed.

Question 26

S2(5)(b) talks about having a lawful excuse for protecting property, what is it intending to do?

Answer 26

To provide a defence for people like firemen who may have to damage property in an emergency. You must have destroyed the property to protect other property, believed the other property was in need of protection, and the actions took were reasonable. Example, fireman knocking down shed to stop fire spreading to next house.

Question 27

Give a case example of where it failed on the basis of protecting property?

Answer 27

R v Hunt - fire alarms not working properly in old peoples home, disputed complaints nothing was done so he set fire to bedding. He was not protecting property, he was drawing attention to the problems.