Criminal Damage and Arson Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

key notes and cases for criminal damage and arson...

Description

Criminal / Damage and Arson Notes S 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 Simple Criminal Damage / Simple Arson (add 'by fire'): Actus Reus: ● Destroys or damages; ● Property; ● Belonging to another Mens rea: ● Intention or recklessness to destroy or damage property; ● The defendant knows or is reckless as to whether the property belongs to another. Roe v Kingerlee: Destroys or damages: ● Common sense approach; consider whether there has been any expense in restoration ● A matter of fact and degree Hardman: Destroys or damages: ● The damage need not be extensive S 101(1) CDA: Property = anything tangible, real or personal i.e. money, realty etc. S 102(2) CDA: Property will belong to another if that person has custody, control, a proprietary interest or charge on it. Maloney: Intention to damage property can be direct Nedrick/Woollin: Intention to damage property can be indirect Cunningham: Recklessness as defined in R v G R v Smith: The Defendant will not be liable under s 1(1) or (2) CDA if he honestly believed that the property belonged to himself. ● Defence so s 1(1) S 5(2)(a) CDA: Permission: The defendant will have the defence of lawful excuse if he believed that he had/would have had the consent from the person who was capable of giving permission/ the person the defendant believed was capable of giving permission NB: even if fraudulent (R v Denton) R v Denton: Defendant has a defence under s 5(2)(a) CDA even if consent from the person who was capable/he believed was capable of giving permission was fraudulent. ● Defence to s 1(1)

S 5(2)(b) CDA: Protection: The defendant will have the defence of lawful excuse if: ● The defendant believed that the property (his own or another's) was in immediate need of protection; and ● The defendant believed the means of protection were reasonable having regard to the circumstances. Jaggard v Dickinson: The defence of lawful excuse has been successful even when based on voluntary intoxication, despite criminal damage being a basic intent crime. ● S 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 Aggravated Criminal Damage / Aggravated Arson (add 'by fire): Actus Reus: ● Destroys or damages; ● Property; Mens rea: ● Intention or recklessness to destroy or damage property; ● Intention or recklessness as to the endangerment of life of another (by the damage) R v Dudley: Life under s 1(2) doesn't actually have to be endangered - there just needs to be a risk. R v Steer: Under s 1(2) the endangerment to life must be from the destruction/damage itself. ● Defence to s 1(2) ● S 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 Self Defence: It must be established that: ● The defendant used reasonable force (objective test) ● The force was reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be (subjective test) R v Bird: Self defence can be pre-emptive R v Palmer: Discretion in decision-making is allowed in the heat of the moment when establishing self-defence. R v Williams (Gladstone): Self defence: The defendant is judged on the facts as he honestly believed them to be, even if unreasonable or mistaken R v O'Grady; R v Hatton: The defendant is not judged on the facts as he honestly believed them to be if the mistake was due to voluntary intoxication as must be judged by the reasonable sober man's standards.

R v Martin (Anthony): The defendant is not judged on the facts as he honestly believed them to be if the mistake derives from a psychiatric ailment (appears inconsistent) ● NB: See also s 76 CJIA 2008; S 43 CCA 2013...