Criminal 3 Criminal Damage

Criminal Damage CDA 1971, s1(1)

Destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse with intention or recklessness

Samuel v Stubbs

The definition of damage is wide, it will depend on the circumstances, nature of article and the mode by which it was affected

Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon

Damage need not be permanent, if it requires time, effort and money to fix then it will still be damage

Roe v Kingerlee

Mud spread on police cell cost £7 to remove, this amounted to damage

A (a juvenile) v R

Spitting on a policeman’s raincoat was not criminal damage, it was free and easy to remove with no mark or stain

Morphitis v Salmon

Criminal damage includes permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness

Fiak \[2005\]

Rendering an object temporarily unusable amounts to criminal damage

Property CDA 1971, s10(1)

Property is everything of a tangible nature including money, tamed animals and non-wild mushrooms and plants on the land

R v Whitely

Information does not fall within the definition of property

Belonging to another, s10(2)

Property that anyone has custody/ control of, a proprietary right/ interest over or having a charge over

R v Moloney

Intention is given its ordinary meaning

R v G

For recklessness, the prosecution must prove that the accused was subjectively aware of the risk and it was objectively unreasonable to take that risk

R v Smith

Ignorance of criminal law is no defence but may be a defence for ignorance of civil law to prevent liability

Basic Arson, s1(1) and s1(3)

Destroy or damage by fire property belong to another without lawful excuse with intention or recklessness

Lawful Excuse, s5(2)(a)

D believes the owner would have consented

Lawful Excuse Consent, s5(2) and (3)

Defendant needs to believe there is consent but this does not need to be reasonable

Jaggard v Dickinson

Voluntary intoxication is not relevant to whether belief of consent is reasonable

R v Denton

“there is nothing like a good fire for improving the financial circumstances of a business” deemed to be belief for consent

Blake v DPP

Belief that the consent was from good is not permitted under s5(2)(a) defence of consent

Lawful Excuse, s5(2)(b)

Defendant was acting to protect property

R v Baker & Wilkins

Protecting property defence is not applicable to people

Requirements for Defence of Property

Must act to protect property, must believe the property was in immediate need of protection, must believe that means of protection was reasonable and must be objectively capable of protecting the property

R v Hunt

Defendant must be objectively capable of protecting the property

Johnson v DPP

Property must need immediate protection

R v Hill and Hall

Objectively capable of protecting the property is upheld, the protection must not be too remote

Other Defences, CDA 1971 s5(5)

Other defences are still available for criminal damage and basic arson

Aggravated Criminal Damage

Criminal damage with added intention or recklessness as to the endangerment of life

Aggravated Arson

Arson with added intention or recklessness as to the endangerment of life

Lawful excuses for Aggravated Criminal Damage/ Arson, CDA 1971, s5(2)

Do not apply

R v Sangha

For aggravated criminal damage/ arson, it is not relevant whether life is actually endangered, just that there is intention or recklessness

R v Dudley

Destruction or damage for aggravated offences refers to intended or reckless damage not actual damage

R v Steer

For aggravated offences, the danger to life must arise from damaged property not the actions of the defendant

R v Webster

For aggravated offences, danger to life must come from the damaged property, not the actions of the defendant