CRIMINAL DAMAGE

Destroy and Damage- Roe v Kinglerlee [1986]; Gayford v Chouler [1898]; A v R [1978]; Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset; R v Fiak [2005]

• Kinglerlee [1986]- Damage- matter of fact and degree

• Gayford v Chouler [1898]; Hardman v Chief Constable [1986]; Fiak [2005]

• Damage need not be permanent- cost money, time/effort to remove damage

A (a juvenile) v R [1978]- damage has to be more than merely trivial

Fiak [2005]- damage- temporary impairment of usefulness and value

• contrasts with: Morphitis v Salmon [1990]-(scratch on the scaffolding bar did not affect utility or value)

Recent Litigation: Banksy’s response to ban on Palestine Action, Royal Courts of Justice (Sep 2025)

Belonging to Another- R v Denton [1982]

• must have some proprietary interest in it- includes co-ownership, but not rights of insurers

• not liable for criminal damage when it belongs to one personally, even if it was made by someone with lots of cultural value

R v G [2003]

subjective test of recklessness

1. D is aware of a risk that it will occur, and

2. In the circumstances known to D, it is unreasonable to take that risk.

R v Moloney [1985]

• D- charged with murder, but HL allowed D’s appeal- not intended to kill his stepfather. 

• Foresight of consequences is only evidence of intent, not intent itself.

• If death or serious harm is a natural consequence and the defendant foresaw it, the jury may infer intent.

• The jury is not required to find intent even if those conditions are met.

Owners Consent- Jaggard v Dickinson [1980]; R v Hill and Hall [1989]

• D had been staying with a friend- gave permission to treat the house as her own.

• attempted to enter what she thought was her friend’s house, smashing a window in the process.

• Appeal allowed: [A] belief can be just as much honestly held if it is induced by intoxication, as if it stems from stupidity, forgetfulness or inattention’.

• an honest mistake is sufficient, even if it is unjustified- has to be realistic.

Property in Need of Protection- Hill and Hall (1989); R v Hunt (1978)

• Ds intended to use a hacksaw blade to cut fence- protest against the presence of US nuclear weapons in UK.

Test:

1. Did D honestly believe that he was protecting property (the subjective test)

2. Could the act amount to something done to protect property (objective test).

R v Hunt (1978)

• D set fire to the bedding in a care home to draw attention to the defective fire alarm system

• arrested and charged with criminal damage- not protecting the property

Limits of s5(2)(b)- Blake v DPP (1992); R v Kelleher [2003]

• D- protest use of military force in Iraq and Kuwait, wrote Biblical quotation on concrete pillar

• D argued- had God’s consent to write on the pillar.

• Held: s.5(2)(a) would not apply. An honest belief in God’s consent is not sufficient- too remote.

• D went into an art gallery and knocked the head off a statue of Margaret  Thatcher.

• Held: s.5(2)(a) would not apply. D damaged the statue to gain publicity for his views.

• Limits to Article 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR?

Public Protest- Attorney General’s Reference On A Point Of Law [2024]

• D and others threw pink paint at the offices of several organisation- attention to the climate emergency and inaction of organisations

• ‘circumstances’ of damage would not include the political or philosophical beliefs- too remote from the damage.

• Evidence from D about the facts of or effects of climate change would be inadmissible.

Aggravated Criminal Damage- R v Sangha [1988]

• D set fire to some chairs in a room; the whole house burnt down.

• D did not know that the house was empty, and so there was no risk to people.

• D was convicted, because a reasonable person would have thought that there was a risk that people’s lives would be endangered

• liable under arson- criminal damage by fire and endangerment of live

R v Steer [1988]

• D fired rifle shots at the windows of a house occupied by V, against whom he had a grudge.

• Danger to life was caused by the bullets, not by damage to the windows.

• Held: s.1(2) requires intention or recklessness as to the endangering of life by the damaging or destruction of property, not merely by D’s act