Criminal damage - Definition PDF

Preview

Summary

Definition...

Description

Criminal damage Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971: “A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence” Actus reus 1. The defendant destroyed or damaged an item 2. The item was property 3. The property belonged to another person Mens rea 1. The defendant intentionally or recklessly destroyed or damaged the property 2. The defendant knew that the property belonged to another person or was reckless as to whether it did 3. The defendant lacked a lawful excuse D destroyed or damaged an item  The usefulness are impaired  Time and money spent to fix  Evidence of damage Faik – blanket into the toilet and flushed. He ruined the blanket and flooded the cells. The court said the usefulness was impaired of the blanket and cell they cannot be used till they are dry. Drake v DPP – The clamp on car, it had made the var useable but not damage and the car’s physical integrity had not been affected. Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset – Painted on the pavement, the court said the painting did damage as the council had use a water jet which cost money and damage pavement. Roe v Kingerlee – Mud on cell. Court said need not be permanent but had led to it being cleaned. Morphitis v Salmon – Neighbour said that she damaged the scaffolding. The damage was a scratch and did not affect the usefulness and it a normal wear. A (a juvenile) v R – Spat on raincoat. Court said the spit can be wiped off. But can amount to criminal damage if the spit remained then they can or if there are dry cleaning bills. The item was property Can be found in section 10. Can be guilty of criminal damage of land Cannot be criminally damage of intangible property. The property belonged to another person Anyone with a proprietary right or interest

D intentionally or recklessly destroyed or damaged the property G & another: Cunningham definition of recklessness D knew that the property belonged to another person or was reckless as to whether it did Smith: Rented flat and fixed the property. Eyes of the law it became the landlords but before he left he damaged the things he fixed to recover his wiring. When D took the panelling down, he genuinely believed it still belonged to him. So D had not intended to (or been reckless as to whether he would) destroy/damage property belonging to belonging to another. So his crime was quashed. The defendant lacked a lawful excuse Two reasonable excuses are set out in section 5 Criminal Damage Act 1971: Section 5(2)(a): Genuine belief in consent - Jaggard v Dickinson: Staying with a friend, got drunk and tried to open the wrong door. She genuinely believed her friend owned that house and that her friend would have consented to her breaking in. Court said that for s5(2) we must look at what D genuinely believed, even if that belief was induced by voluntary intoxication Section 5(2)(b): Protection of property (emergency) - Hill and Hall: Lived near naval base, found in possession of a blade. It was a prime target from Russia. D said they wanted to comprise the security to move the US base somewhere else. They said they were going to cut the wire to protect their homes. 1) Did D damage the property in order to protect another item of order to protect another item of property? 2) Did D genuinely believe that her property needed immediate her property needed immediate protection? 3) Did D genuinely believe the means adopted were reasonable? The d’s actions were too remote from their aim so conviction upheld. Controversial as it goes against section 5(2)(b) Aggravated criminal damage The offence is defined in section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971:“ A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging 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”

Punishable by life imprisonment The actus reus of aggravated criminal damage D destroyed or damaged an item The item was property BUT the property doesn’t have to belong to someone else, you can damage your own property The mens rea of aggravated criminal damage D intentionally or recklessly destroyed or damaged D intended by the destruction/damage to endanger the life of another or was reckless as to whether the life of another or was reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered G & another Steer: Saw the victim looking out a window and fired a gun. HOL said it must have been the property dmage which endangered the victim, in this case it was the bullet. D lacked a lawful excuse - Section 5 (2) does not rely here....