Karteikarten
Chapter 2 : Criminal Damage
Karten in diesem Stapel (21)
- 1S1 Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides for two criminal damage offences. What are they?1. s1(1) - the basic offence - intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging any property belonging to another.
2. s1(2) - the aggravated offence - intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging any property, whether belonging to the defendant or another. . . intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would thereby be endangered. - 2What does s1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971 state?This sets out the definition for arson being "destroying or damaging property by fire". Note this does not constitute a separate offence to the basic or aggravated offence but simply refers to either of them being committed by fire.
- 3What is a defence for the basic offence and / or the aggravated offence?A defence is that the destruction or damage was done with a lawful excuse. This excuse is more limited in relation to the aggravated offence.
- 4What is criminal damage?Criminal damage is an offence of destroying or causing damage to any tangible property.
- 5In relation to the basic offence, what is the actus reus and mens rea?The actus reus is the defendant's destruction or damage to property belonging to another. The mens rea is the intending or being reckless as to the damage or destruction caused to the property belonging to another.
- 6What is meant by the word "damage" in the definition of basic offence?There will be damage where there is a permanent change in quality and / or value. The damage does not need to be irreparable. This is illustrated in Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset. An indicator of damage may be that expenditure of time and / or money is required to restore the property to its original state (as seen in Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset). Therefore, where little effort and no expense is required, this will be an indicator against the finding of damage (as seen in A (a Juvenile)).
- 7Can damage result where there is impairment of use, even though there is no obvious physical damage or permanent loss of quality or value?Yes, damage may result where there is impairment of use, even though there is no obvious physical damage or permanent loss of quality or value. This is supported by Morphitis v Salmon. Common sense must be used when considering the issue.
- 8What kind of property is relevant in relation to the basic offence and the aggravated offence of criminal damage?For the purposes of criminal damage, property means property of a tangible nature (i.e. anything that can be touched). This includes real property (land) and personal property (car).
- 9In the basic offence, what is meant by "belonging to another"?In the basic offence, the property destroyed or damage must belong to another. Property belongs to any person who has custody or control of it, has any proprietary right or interest in it, or has a charge on it. Because of this extended definition of "belonging to another", an owner may be guilty of destroyed or damaging his own property (if, say, someone else has an interest in it).
- 10Explain the mens rea element of the basic offence of criminal damage.The mens rea is intention or recklessness both as to the destruction or damage and as to the fact that the property belongs to another. If the prosecution bases its case on intention, the defendant will escape liability if he genuinely believed he owned the property. If the prosecution bases its case on recklessness, this needs to be assessed subjectively. The issue will therefore be whether the defendant himself realised that the property might belong to another and, in spite of a risk that he might not own it, nevertheless destroyed or damage it as if it were his own. It must also be proven that the defendant intended or foresaw a risk that damage might occur. The prosecution does not need to prove the defendant knew or realised that what he did might in law amount to criminal damage.
- 11What is the similarity between the basic offence and the aggravated offence?The aggravated offence requires proof of intentional or reckless damage or destruction, as does the basic offence.
- 12What are the three main ways in which the aggravated offence differs from the basic offence?1. It can be committed where the defendant damages or destroys his own property.
2. Defendant must intend or be reckless as to the endangering of life.
3. Defendant must intend or be reckless as to the endangering of life by the criminal damage. - 13Explain the difference between the aggravated offence and the basic offence that "it can be committed where the defendant damages or destroys his own property".This is because the aggravating feature is the intention or recklessness as to endangering of life. This feature is present irrespective or who owns the property. Obviously, this removes the requirement to prove the mens rea in relation to ownership of the property.
- 14Explain the difference between the aggravated offence and the basic offence that "the defendant must intend or be reckless as to the endangering of life".There is no need for life to be endangered in fact. The issue is whether the defendant intended life to be endangered or was reckless as to the endangering of life.
- 15Explain the difference between the aggravated offence and the basic offence that "the defendant must intend or be reckless as to the endangering of life by the criminal damage".Victim is standing behind window and the defendant shoots at him and breaks the window but misses the victim. The defendant intentionally damaged the window but he did not intend to endanger the victim's life by breaking the window (he intended to shoot him). This is not therefore an aggravated offence. The defendant's intention (or recklessness) to endanger life must stem from the actual damage to property that the defendant causes. This is supported by the two cases, Webster and Warwick.
- 16In both the basic and aggravated offence, the defendant will not be guilty if he had a lawful excuse for committing the damage. True or false?True.
- 17Which act sets out the defence of lawful excuse which applies to the basic offence?S5 Criminal Damage Act 1971.
- 18What are the two specific defences to criminal damage under S5(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971?1.. S5(2)(a) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - The defendant has a lawful excuse if he believed he had, or would have, the consent of the person he believed was entitled to consent.
2. S5(2)(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - The defendant will have a lawful excuse if he believed that the property was in immediate need of protection AND that the means of protection adopted were reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. - 19In relation to s5(2)(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971, which case demonstrates that once the defendant's purpose is established, whether the defendant acted in order to protect the property is an objective matter?Hill and Hall - In this case it was held that the possibility of protecting property was too remote from the damage AND there was no immediate need for protection.
- 20What is another case which demonstrated a failed attempt at using the defence in s5(2)(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971?Hunt - In this case the defence failed as it was held that the defendant was not acting in order to protect the property. There was no evidence that the property was in immediate need of protection or that the defendant (or a reasonable person) would regard what the defendant did as a reasonable means of protecting the property.
- 21Can a lawful excuse defence under s5 Criminal Damage Act 1971 be used for an aggravated offence?No. It is not a sufficient excuse for endangering the life of another that the owner would have consented to the destruction or damage OR that such destruction or damage was necessary to protect the property. In the aggravated offence, the danger which the defendant is seeking to reduce by destroying or damaging property would have to be exceptional to excuse him from liability for conduct which he intends will endanger the life of another or where he is reckless as to that possibility.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Level 3 Criminal Law Karteikarten am Chapter 2 : Criminal Damage, erstellt von Emily Greig am 29/05/2018.
- Erstellt von
- Emily Greig
- Aufrufe
- 2
- Bewertung