criminal damage

s1(1) criminal damage act 1971

a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence

elements to criminal damage

1. a person

2. destroys/damages

3. property

4. belonging to another

5. intention/recklessness as to damage

6. intention/recklessness as to property belonging to another

7. without lawful excuse (defences)

destruction/damage definition

no official definition, but usually described as ‘any alteration to the physical nature of the property may amount to damage’

gayford v choulder

prosecuted for trampling grass in a field - suggests there’s no strong de minimis principle

fisher

d blocked up part of a steam engine, rendering it inoperable. it took 2 hours, but no parts, to repair. court decided there was damage to machine as a whole because it was inoperable and rendered useless for that time frame

morphitis v salmon

d dismantled scaffolding and removed a bar, which was later found to be scratched. prosecution tried to commit based on small scratch, but conviction quashed as damage not severe enough (didn’t impair usefulness/functionality - damage must interfere with use of property not just impair aesthetics).

had prosecution focused on the dismantling of scaffolding as a whole, conviction likely would’ve succeeded as it impaired function.

henderson v battley

d deposited loads of rubble on d’s newly cleared building site. v had to spend £2000 on its removal. held that it was damage, as the site was impaired, and it cost v unnecessarily

fiak

d flooded police cell by putting blanket down toilet and flushing repeatedly. although not permanent, d’s actions amounted to damage as it rendered both blanket and cell unusable for a period of time

lloyd v dpp

d parked in unauthorised spot and got vehicle clamped. d damaged clamps when removing them and was charged with criminal damage as a result

a (a juvenile) 1978

d spast on officers raincoat. held there was no damage as there was no stain/cleaning required, therefore no loss physically/financially

grajewski (australian case)

d climed onto ship loader in protest, making it shut down for 2 hours. original conviction quashed as physical integrity of property not altered in any respect

hardman v chief constable of avon and somerset constabulary

d used water soluble paints as part of protest. held that it was damage as council had to pay someone to remove it, even though it would’ve washed off in the rain

samuels v stubbs AUSTRALIAN CASE

d stamps on police officer’s hat during protest. hat could easily be pushed back into shape, but conviction still upheld

literally goes against everything ever wtf - grajewski hellooooo??

s10(1) criminal damage act 1971

meaning of property

cresswell v dpp

d damaged badger traps in protest to badger cull and tried to argue defence of protection of property in relation to the badgers. defence failed as badgers aren’t property as they are wild animals

baker 1997

humans not property

s10(2) criminal damage act

definition of belonging to another

r v g and r

introduces use of subjective (rather than objective) recklessness in criminal damage. overruled case of caldwell

lord bingham recklessness test

a person acts recklessly within the meaning if s1 criminal damage act 1971 with respect to

• a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist

• a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur

• and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk

smith

if d damaged property which he genuinely believed belonged to him, then he can’t be found guilty of the offence of criminal damage, irrelevant of whether the belief was justifiable

s5 criminal damage act 1971

sets out defences of consent and protection of proeprty

s5(3) criminal damage act 1971

doesn’t matter if belief is justifiable if it is honestly held

elements of consent

• d believes they had consent

• d believes the person who consented had the right to consent

• d believes person giving consent would have done so in the circumstances

r v denton

d set fire to machinery claiming that employer told him to do it to get insurance claim. conviction quashed as d honestly believed that they had consent - doesn’t need honest intention

blake v dpp

d wrote biblical quotations on houses of parliament, claiming that he was acting on god’s instructions. claimed belief in consent and protection of property - both failed

ag’s ref (no1 2023)(2024)

d argued c would’ve consented to damage, had they known the circumstances. on appeal, decided that d must’ve held that genuine belief at the time of the act and not after the fact. circumstances considered must be linked to damage itself, not the intention behind it

jaggard v dickinson

d broke into house when intoxicated, believing it was her friends. conviction quashed as there was an honestly held belief and intellectual soundness doesn’t matter HEAVILY CRITICISED DECISION

magee v cps

d convicted of failing to stop after an accident where damage was caused to another vehicle when intoxicated. principle in jaggard v dickinson in relation to intoxication only applies in certain cases - shows how controversial dickinson decision was

r v hunt

d set fire to bedding to prove disgraceful state of the fire alarm system. argued that he was acting to protect greater good. conviction upheld as protection of property judged objectively, and it was decided that actions were too remote

hill and hall

ds intended to cut through perimeter fence of usaf base, believing if base closed, it would be unlikely for there to be a soviet nuclear attack on that area, therefore protecting houses. they were convicted, as there was no immediate danger (objective assessment of remoteness and immediacy)

dpp v ditchfield

for an act to be done in order to protect property, it must be of a kind capable of conferring immediate protection of property concerned. an act whose purpose is to put pressure on public bodies doesn’t satisfy this

ziegler v dpp

d blocked highway for 90 mins as peaceful protest. not convicted as it was not proportional in regards to art 10/11. ds acquitted due to fact that conviction was disproportionate in relation to their rights to protest

colston case

ds toppled statue of slave trader in bristol. defence of consent failed but acquitted on basis that conviction was disproportionate in relation to their rights to protest

ag ref 2022

echr doesn’t provide protection to those who cause criminal damage through violent/non-peaceful protest

prosecution and conviction for significant criminal damage even if peaceful is not disproportionate