Criminal Damage (PO) - Lecture 11 PDF

Preview

Summary

Property Offence: Criminal Damage & Arson 2013There are four ways of committing criminal damage: 1. The basic offence – S (1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA 1971) 2. The aggravated offence – S (2) CDA 1971 3. The basic offence of fire (Arson) – S CDA 1971 4. The aggravated offence (Arson) – S. 1(...

Description

Property Offence: Criminal Damage & Arson 2013 There are four ways of committing criminal damage: 1. The basic offence – S.1 (1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA 1971) 2. The aggravated offence – S.1 (2) CDA 1971 3. The basic offence of fire (Arson) – S.3 CDA 1971 4. The aggravated offence (Arson) – S. 1(3) CDA 1971 Basic Criminal Damage: Section 1 (1) CDA 1971 provides that: ‘…A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty…’ Actus Reus: 1. Destroys/ Damages – It should be given its ordinary meaning and is the centre element of the offence. Whether property is destroyed or damaged is a question of fact and degree. ‘Destroy’ indicates finality. ‘Damage’ can be temporary or permanent but must involve physical harm or impairment of the value or utility of the property. See: Morphitis v Salmon [1990]. Samuels v Stubbs [1972] – Some damage must be done, albeit slight. There must be some injury, mischief or harm done to the property. Property may be damaged even though not physically injured. Hardman v CC Avon [1986] and Fiak [2005] – Demonstrates that the damage does not have to be permanent, however this is in contrast to A v R [1978]. 2. Property – Property is defined in S.10 CDA 1971 and must be tangible. See: Cox v Riley [1986] and R v Whitely [1991]. 3. Belonging to another – The prosecution must show that the property belonged to another. S.10 (2) CDA 1971 provides that property shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as belong to any person: I. Having the custody or control of it II. Having in it any proprietary right or interest … or … III. Having a charge of it Mens Rea: The MR required for an offence under S.1 (1) CDA 1971 is the intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another. R v G [2003] – A person acts recklessly within the meaning of S.1 of the Act.

1

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Property Offence: Criminal Damage & Arson 2013  

A circumstance when he was aware of the risk that it existed or would exist; A result when he was aware of a risk that it would occur, and it was in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.

1. Without Lawful Excuse – It must be without lawful excuse. A lawful excuse can be based on various reasons, such as self-defence, necessity, duress etc. S.5 CDA 1971 contains a partial definition of the tem lawful excuse, which provides the D with two additional reasons: a. D believed that the owner consented to the damage: D’s belief needs to be honest and will provide a defence even if found to be unreasonable. See: Jaggard v Dickson [1981] and Blake v DPP [1993]. b. D was acting in order to protect his own or another’s property To have this defence available the D must show both that the other property is in need of immediate protection and that the damage caused to the V’s property was reasonable in the circumstances. See: Baker & Wilkins [1997], Jones (Margaret) [2004], and Ayliffe [2005]. Hill and Hall [1989] – Despite the apparent subjective wording of S.5 (2) (b), there is an objective element. The courts have imported a number of restrictions on the operation of S.5 (2) (b) in addition to those specifically mentioned in the 1971 Act: 1. The accused must believe that the property was in immediate need of protection (subjective test). See: Johnson v DPP [1994]. 2. The damage caused by the accused must be (objective) capable of protecting the property. See: R v Hunt [1977]. 3. The accused must believe that the means of protection adopted are reasonable. Arson: Section 1 (3) CDA 1971 provides for an offence of Arson. The offence requires no additional MR to that of criminal damage. The only additional element (part of the AR) is in showing that the damage was caused by fire. The lawful excuse defences does not apply (in addition for the general defences).

2

Criminal Law – Year 2!...