Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

Criminal Damage Act 1971

The simple form of criminal damage is defined in s
...

- The constituent element of the offence,complementing substantially that of theft,are
- a destroying and damage;
- the thing destroyed or damaged must be property;
- the property destroyed or damaged must belong to another;
- intention or recklessness as to prospect of such damage or destruction;
- absence of lawful excuse
AR:Destroy or damages any property belonging to another
1)Destroys or damage
- What is amount to ‘damage’ is not defined in the Act
...
It
includes physical harm,whether permanent or temporary,and the permanent or impairment of the
value or usefulness of the property
...

- ‘A’(A Juvenile) v R (1978): Whether the owner was put under expense to clean the mess or to
repair the damage so that the subject matter can be restored to its original or usefulness of the
property
...

- In Morphitis v Salmon(1990), it was a scratch to a scaffold bar could not constitute damage as it
involved no impairment of it value or usefulness since scratching was a normal incident of
scaffolding components
...

- In Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary(1986),stated that pavement
paintings done in water soluble paint,but which required high-pressure jets to remove,were
regarded as having ‘damaged’ the pavement
...
Their expectation was that rain water and pedestrian
traffic would result in paintings being erased
...
The question seems to be one of fact and
degree ,but whenever the owner of the property is put to trouble or expense in undoing the def’s
actions,this will certainly constitute damage
...

- Sir John Smith has argued that wheel clamping should count as criminal damage on the ground
that ‘if the car can be damaged by removing something,it seems logical that it can be damaged by
adding something
...
’
- In Roe v Kingerlee (1986), mud graffiti daubed on the walls of a cell was held to be criminal
damage even though it was easily removed by water
...
3(6) Computer Misuse Act 1990: “for the purpose of Criminal Damage Act 1971 a

-

modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or
computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium
impairs its condition
...


2)Property
- s10(1) defines property in terms very similar to those in TA 1968
...

- In this Act ‘property’ means property of a tangible nature,whether real or personal including
money and wild creatures( which have been tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity, or being
reduced into possession or their carcasses),not including mushroom growing wild on land or
flowers,fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land
...

3)Belonging to another
- By s
...
—only a bank can give a charge
- NOTE: If the D destroys his own property for a dishonest purpose,for example to make a
fraudulent insurance claim,this is not an offence under s1(1) despite the D’s dishonesty as a
insurance company has no proprietary interest in property it insures
...

- The law here similar that propounded case such as R v Nedrick and R v Woollin
...
However,if the D foresaw a possibility of risk,then the prosecution must prove
“virtual certainty”test can be satisfied
...
The D must be shown to have been aware of a risk of causing damage and it was, in the
circumstances known to him,unreasonable to take the risk
...
It
includes that case of someone who closes their mind to the risk
...
Aware
of those risks then deliberately put them out of his mind and, for reasons of his own,ran into the
path of a car
...

- Lawful excuse generally refers to those excusing or justifying conditions which might negate
liability for any other offences
...

- Apart from general defence,s
...
These are belief in
the owner’s consent and belief that it is necessary to protect one’s own property
...
5(2)(a) — Def
...
believed that person entitled to consent to the destruction or damaging of the
property had so consented; or
(ii) would have consented if he had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances
...
It does not matter whether the def’s mistake was a drunken one [Jaggard v
Dickinson(1980)] or his belief was a mistaken one
...

- The D’s reason and motive for breaking the property is irrelevant
...
He had been one of a group of people
protesting against the military action against Iraq in the Gulf war
...
He
claimed to comply carrying out God’s instructions and he believed God to be the person entitled
to consent to the damage of the property,he had a defence with s
...

- He also sought to invoke s
...

- The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal against conviction
...

- s
...

- The defendant will be able to satisfy this requirement of “immediacy”if the threat to his property
has already materialised
...
’s purpose is something other than the protection of property this defence will not be
available— R v Hunt (1978)
...
set fire to some bedding in a block of old people’s
flats it was to draw attention to the fact that the fire alarm was defective and not to protect
property
...

- In R v Jones and Others (2004),it is enough that the def
...

- Again in R v Hill and Hall (1989) ,the defendants had been separately convicted of possessing
an article(a hacksaw blade)with intent to damage property,an offence under section 3 of the act
3

-

to which s
...
They were in possession of the blades so as to cut through the
perimeter fence surrounding a US naval base
...
5(2)(b) defence,claiming that
their object was to encourage the removal of the base from the area, thus reducing the risk that
their nearby homes might be damaged in a future nuclear strike against the base
...
The CA agreed and said that it was for the trial
judge to decide ,as a matter of law,whether ,on the facts as the D believed them to be,the
cutting of the wire could amount to property-protecting act
...
there was any evidence that the believed there
was an immediate danger which they were acting to avert
...


Aggravated Criminal Damage
DESTROYING OR DAMAGING PROPERTY WITH INTENT TO ENDANGER LIFE
- S
...

- S
...

- One major difference between this section and s
...
The D can destroy or damage his own property
...
must intend to damage or destroy property or be reckless thereto
...
must intend by that damage to endanger life or be reckless thereto
...

- It must be proved that the D was aware of an obvious and significant risk of danger to life
...

- It is vital that the prosecution is able to show the link between the criminal damage itself and the
D’s ulterior mens rea
...

- R v Steer(1987): The D had fired shots with an automatic rifle at the house of a business
partner
...
There was no
evidence to show that the shots were aimed at occupants
...
He appealed on the basis that
the only danger had come from the firing of the gun and not from the damage i
...
shattered
windows,caused by the firing of the gun
...
Therefore, the D must intend the damage to endanger life or be
reckless as to whether it does
...

- This decision is affirmed in the following cases:
- R v Webster & Others (1995) :The D dropped a heavy coping-stone onto a passing train from a
bridge
...
His conviction on a count alleging an intention ‘by the same damage to endanger the life of
another’ was quashed,following Steer, on the ground that he did not intend to endanger life by
the commission of criminal damage but by the impact of the stone itself
...

R v Warwick(1995) : where it was held that throwing stones at,and ramming ,police cars were
properly charged with offences under s
...
had intentionally caused or recklessly caused
...

R v Wenton(Luke)(2010) : The D threw a brick though the victim’s window,breaking it
...
However,the victim’s property did not catch
fire
...
was appealing against his conviction under s
...
The def
...
1(2)
...
Here,where a firebomb was quickly extinguished thus negating
any risk of life,there was nevertheless an offence under s
...

R v Harris (2013) : This case is a reminder that recklessness,for the purpose of criminal damage
requires proof of a conscious taking of an unjustified risk of endangering life
...

In this case,the D pleaded guilty to simple arson
...
and on the basis denied that
he was guilty of arson being reckless as to whether the life of another was endangered
...


Without Lawful Excuse

- In s
...
1(1)
...
5 does not apply to
offences under s
...
If the D believed that the person entitled to consent did
consent,however,the D intended to endanger life or was reckless,thereto,this s1(2) will bite [R v
Merrick(1996)]
...
1(2) does refer to lawful excuse and this is to be read in conjunction with any excuse
that is recognised by law
...
1(3) CDA 1971, provides that “…An offence committed under this section by destroying or
damaging property by fire shall be charged with arson…”
- In Drayton (Alan Clark)(2005),it was held that whether the prosecution charges the D to arson or
to damage by fire,rather than damage by other means,they mean exactly the same thing
...
The statue is silent
as to whether the MR should include intention or reckless in destroying or damaging property
by fire?Smith and Hogan and Prof
...

5



---