LG 4 Criminal Damage - Full lecture notes LLB LawFull lecture notes LLB Law PDF

Preview

Summary

Full lecture notes LLB LawFull lecture notes LLB Law...

Description

Criminal Damage

1.

Introduction and context In today’s Large Group you will gain an overview of a range of offences contained in the Criminal Damage Act 1971:

1.1

simple criminal damage arson aggravated criminal damage, and aggravated arson Criminal damage in the context of twenty-first century Britain

2.

Simple 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.

2.1

Actus reus The defendant must destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse.

2.1.1 Destruction or damage

Destruction has its normal English language meaning. Physical harm // permanent // temporary // impair value or usefulness and expense incurred Damage is sometimes less clear. Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary [1986] Crim LR 330 A (a juvenile) v R [1978] Crim LR 689

1.1.2 Property belonging to another - Wild flowers e.g

1.1.3 No lawful excuse for the damage. Section 5(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 – a person has a lawful excuse if they have: (a) an honest belief that the owner of the property consented to the destruction or would have consented if they had known of the circumstances; or (b) an honest belief that the reason for destroying or damaging the property was to protect property belonging to himself or another.

e.g smash someone’s door to put out the fire in their house. 2.2

Activity 1 Beth pours water on a valuable painting which she owns in order to destroy it. Her motivation is to make a fraudulent insurance claim in order to pay off her debts. She plans to tell the insurers that the painting was damaged in a flood. Has the actus reus of criminal damage been satisfied? Damage – yes Property to another – no Without lawful excuse - yes

2.3

Mens rea The mens rea for simple criminal damage is that the defendant must:  

either intend to damage property belonging to another or be reckless as to whether that is the consequence of his actions; and know or believe that the property belongs to another.

2.3.1 A subjective or objective test? R v G [2003] UKHL 50 Got to appreciate the risk involved. Test for recklessness is subjective not objective. 2.4

Activity 2 Lucy cuts a designer dress, which she believes to be hers, into pieces because it has a stain on the front. In fact the dress is an identical one belonging to her flatmate. Does Lucy have the necessary mens rea for simple criminal damage? Hasn’t got the knowledge or belief that it belongs to another

2.5

An offence of basic or specific intent? Basic

2.

Arson Criminal damage is committed where the defendant destroys or damages property belonging to another, either intentionally or recklessly and without a lawful excuse. This becomes the offence of arson where the damage or destruction is caused by the use of fire. The offence may be found under sections 1(1) and 1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

4.

Aggravated Criminal Damage Section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 creates the offence of destroying or damaging property with intent to endanger life, which is more commonly referred to as aggravated criminal damage.

4.1

Actus reus Differences between the simple and aggravated offences.

4.2

Mens rea The defendant intends to destroy or damage the property or is reckless as to whether property will be damaged or destroyed AND intends by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or is reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered.

4.3

Endangerment of life

R v Dudley [1989] Crim LR5 Does not matter whether it actually endangered life or not, just need the MR R v Steer [1986] 1 WLR 1286 Shot fired at the window pane but never intended to endanger lives. Needs to be shown that the damage endangers lives not the act. 4.4

Activity 3 Grigore rips out the copper wires from a signal box on a railway line leaving live wires exposed. His actions endanger not just the engineers who repair the signals but also passengers on the trains as the damage to the signals may cause an accident.

What will the Prosecution have to prove to show that Grigore had the mens rea for the aggravated offence? The defendant intends to destroy or damage the property – ripping out the wires Activity 4 Toby and Riaz are involved in rioting. They throw bricks at the windscreen of a moving police car. One of the bricks smashes through the window causing the glass to shatter and injure the driver. Shocked by the impact, the police officer loses control, crashes the car and further injures both himself and his passenger. Are Toby and Riaz likely to be guilty of aggravated criminal damage?

4.5

Three differences with simple criminal damage (1) Property doesn’t belong (2)lawful excuse not available (2) Endangerment is required for mens rea

5.

Lawful Excuse s.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.

5.1

Honest belief that the owner consented / would have consented

See Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] QB 527 If you can commit a crime recklessly, intoxication is no defence. However with this, it needs to be honestly believed. A woman breaks into her believed to be friends house honestly thinking that her friend would not be bothered. This turned out to not be her friend’s house and managed to get away with it. 5.2

Honest belief that the property was destroyed / damaged to protect property

5.2.1 Was the defendant’s action done to protect property?

R v Hill and Hall [1989] Crim LR 136 The action was far too remote. 5.2.2. Did the defendant honestly believe that the property was in immediate need of protection and the means adopted were reasonable? If yes, did they honestly believe that the property was in immediate need of protection and the means adopted were reasonable?(subjective) Johnson v DPP [1994] Crim LR 673 Knocked the lock out and changed them to his, says that he was trying to prevent his stuff being stolen. No immediate threat of attack of stealing. 5.3

Activity 5 Daniel demolishes a wall which his neighbour Edward has built on his land. Daniel honestly believes that it is necessary for him to do this in order to protect a right of vehicular access which his property enjoys across Edward’s land; and that if he fails to do this immediately, his ability to enforce this right will be prejudiced. Is Daniel liable for simple criminal damage?

6.

Conclusion

6.1

Activity 6 1.

Which of the following is NOT an element of the actus reus of criminal damage under s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971? A. Intending or being reckless as to the damage

2.

Is the following statement true or false? Mushrooms do not constitute 'property' as defined by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. A. True

3.

Dave, on his way home from art class, decides to propose to his girlfriend by writing ‘Will you marry me Jess?’ in chalk on her parents’ house. Which one of the following statements is correct? A. the actus reus of criminal damage.

4.

Which of the following best describes the mens rea required for the offence of simple criminal damage, contrary to s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971? A. The defendant intends or is reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another and knows or believes that the property belongs to another.

5.

Which of the following describes the test for recklessness in criminal damage? A. The defendant was aware of the risk of damage or destruction and unreasonably took it.

6.

In order to establish the defence of lawful excuse under s.5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 it is immaterial whether the defendant's belief is justified provided it is honestly held? Is this true or false? A. True

7.

Which one of the following statements concerning the comparison between simple and aggravated criminal damage is correct? A. For the aggravated offence there is an additional requirement of mens rea that the defendant by the destruction or damage intended to endanger the life of another or was reckless as to whether the life of another would thereby be endangered.

CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971 1.

Destroying or damaging property (1)

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.

(2)

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. (3)

An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson. * *

5.

*

“Without lawful excuse” (1)

This section applies to any offence under section 1(1) above . .

.

(2)

A person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse (a)

if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or

(b)

if he destroyed or damaged . . . the property in question . . . in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed (i)

that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and

(ii)

that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

(3)

For the purpose of this section it immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

(4)

For the purpose of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any right or privilege in or over land, whether created by grant, licence or otherwise.

(5)

This section shall not be construed as casting doubt on any defence recognised by law as a defence to criminal charges. * *

*

10.

Interpretation (1)

In this Act “property” means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money and (a)

including wild creatures which have been tamed or are ordinarily kept in captivity, and any other wild creatures or their carcasses if, but only if, they have been reduced into possession which has not been lost or abandoned or are in the course of being reduced into possession; but

(b)

not including mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land.

For the purposes of this subsection “mushroom” includes any fungus and “plant” includes any shrub or tree. (2)

(3)

Property shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as belonging to any person (a)

having the custody or control of it;

(b)

having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or

(c)

having a charge on it.

Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be so treated as including any person having a right to enforce the trust.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

This page is intentionally blank...