Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this document? Why not share!

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource

on

  • 580 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
580
Views on SlideShare
580
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource Document Transcript

  • 1. Satvir DarochThree main elements of Criminal damage governed by the Criminal Damages Act 1971 s1. Criminal Damage s1(1) Criminal Damage with intent to endanger life s1(2) Arson s1(3)If the offence is criminal damage with intent to endanger life then s1(2) and s1(3) should be used.Section 1(1) provides;‘a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to anotherintending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any suchproperty would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.’Actus Reus;Destroys or damages, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse.Mens rea;Intention to destroy or damage property belonging to another’ or ‘recklessness as to whether suchproperty is destroyed.Actus ReusDestroys or DamagesSamuels v Stubbs (1972) Walters J said it was difficult to lay down a general rule about what wouldamount to damage. It would depend on the particular circumstances, type of damage and how badlyit was damaged.Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon Constabulary (1986) members of the CND, nucleardisarmament group, used water soluble paints on the pavement to symbolise vaporised victims ofHiroshima on the 40th year anniversary. This washed away with rain but their conviction for criminaldamage was upheld as the council was put to the expense of cleaning the pavements.Compare that case with R v A (1978) where the d spat on a policeman’s overcoat but was not guiltyof criminal damage as the spit could have easily been wiped away with a damp cloth. It wouldappear to be criminal damage if someone is put to the expense of repairing or cleaning.It will not amount to criminal damage if there is no impairment of use as shown in Morphitis vSalmon (1990) where a scratch on some scaffolding was not deemed as criminal damage as it didnot prevent its use or affect its value.Property s10(1) Page 1
  • 2. Satvir DarochThe same definition for property as found in Theft should be applied with one real difference,intangible property can be stolen but cannot be damaged.Belonging to anotherThe property must belong to another. Similar to theft, this is wide and includes custody or control ofproperty and having some right in the property. You cannot be charge for destroying your ownproperty, nor can you be charged where you believe the property is your own. This belief does nothave to be justified as long as it is held honestly.Smith (1974) tenants had the permission of their landlord to install wiring in his property. Beforeleaving the tenants removed the wiring but in doing so damaged the floorboards. Once the wireswere down they were considered the property of the landlord but their conviction was quashed bythe CoA on the basis that they honestly believed the wires were their own.Without lawful excuseThere is a defence of lawful excuse that can be relied upon. This is not applicable to criminal damageendangering life. Lawful excuse is where the d destroys property in the belief that; The person entitled to consent would have consented to the destruction or damage if they had known about it and its circumstances s5(2)(a) or It was necessary in order to protect property belonging to himself or another which he believed was in immediate need of protection and he believed the means adopted was reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances s5(2)(b).Section 5(2)(a)Jaggard v Dickenson (1981) d was drunk and broke into a house believing it was a friend’s house.She believed that her friend would have consented to the damage caused. On appeal the court saidthat she should be acquitted because her drunkenness should not play a factor, her belief wasenough.DPP v Blake (1993) a vicar used a marker pen to write biblical quotations on a wall outsideparliament. He argued consent, stating he had God’s consent. He failed as the act mentions nothingabout God.Section 5(2)(b)DPP v Blake (1993) the vicar also claimed that with his protest he was aiming to protect the propertyof the people of the Gulf. He failed because the people of the Gulf were too far away to benefit fromhis actions.Chamberlin v Lindon (1998) d was allowed the defence when he destroyed a neighbour’s wallbecause he honestly believed that the wall was blocking his right of access and he adopted areasonable course of action. Page 2
  • 3. Satvir DarochMens Rea Intention to destroy or damage property belonging to another; or Recklessness as to whether such property is destroyed or damaged.Note that recklessness is now subjective recklessness. This comes from the case of Gemmell andRichards (2003). The Lords, now the Supreme Court overruled their own decision in the case ofCaldwell (1982). The question the courts ask is did the d’ recognise the risk of damaging ordestroying property (and of endangering life for the aggravated offence?Gemmell and Richards (2003) two boys, aged 11 and 13 set fire to some papers at the back of ashop and damaged several buildings. They were convicted of arson on the basis of Caldwell (thedamage was obvious to a reasonable person.) On appeal to the Lords, they used the PracticeStatement 1966 to overrule their previous decision. They said that the previous law was wrong andthe d’ had to understand that there was some sort of risk.Destroying or damaging property with intent to endanger life.Also known by aggravated criminal damage, is covered by Section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act1971 which provides;(2) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whetherbelonging 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 (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.This is similar to criminal damage but is regarded much more serious as the d’ intended to orwas reckless with regard to endangering life. This crime carries a maximum sentence of lifeimprisonment. The other main difference is that the damage does not have to be to propertybelonging to another. It is also important to note that there does not have to be danger to life,it is enough that the d’ realised that life would be endangered.“intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another” can be illustratedby the case of Steer (1987) where the d’ shot a window of a former business partner. Heappealed and was successful. HL held that the danger had to come from the damage to theproperty (broken glass) rather than the original action (firing the shot.) Page 3
  • 4. Satvir DarochArsonSection 1(3) provides;(3) An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fireshall be charged as arson.This again is considered a very serious offence carrying a maximum sentence of life. It is criminaldamage but if the damage is caused by fire it is considered arson.MPC v Caldwell (1982) where the d was convicted of arson when he set fire to a chair in a hotel heworked in. The fire was put out before anyone was injured but he had endangered the lives of theresidents.Elliot v C (1983) a 14 year old girl with very low intelligence was convicted of arson by setting herneighbour’s shed alight. She put white spirit on the floor and set fire to it to stay warm. The old testof objective reasonableness was used and she was judged by the standard of the reasonable person.Would the reasonable person had done the same? Under the more recent test she would not havebeen convicted.Denton (1982) d set fire to his employer’s mill and successfully argued that the owner hadconsented as he wanted to fraudulently claim money through the insurance. The court said that ifthe damage was caused with the intent to endanger life, then no defence would have beenavailable. Page 4