Karteikarten
Ohne Titel
Karten in diesem Stapel (4)
- 1ArsonWhere the destruction or damage to property under either s.1(1) or S.1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 arises through fire, the defendant will also be liable under s.1(3) of criminal damage by arson.
- 2E) R v Miller [1983] The defendant had been out drinking for the evening. He went back to the house he had been staying in and fell asleep on a mattress with a lighted cigarette in his hand. He awoke and saw that the cigarette had started a small fire. Upon seeing the fire, he then got up and went to another room and went back to sleep. At his trial, the prosecution did not rely on the acts of the defendant in falling asleep with a lighted cigarette as being reckless, but relied solely on the grounds that upon becoming aware of the fire he failed to take steps to put the fire out or call the fire brigade.Lawful excuse under S.5 Criminal Damage Act 1971
- 3S.5(2) sets out two instances of what can amount to lawful excuse in relation to criminal damage. S.5(2)(a) covers belief in consent and s.5(2)(b) covers belief that property was in immediate need of protection. By virtue of s.5(3) these two provisions are entirely subjective in their approach, based entirely on the defendant's belief. It need not be a justifiable belief provided it is an honest belief. Even a drunken mistaken belief is sufficientE) Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] The appellant had been out drinking for the evening and became stranded with no money or lift home. She went to a friend’s house and knocked on the door. There was no answer, so believing her friend would consent in the circumstances, she broke into the house. In fact the house did not belong to her friend.The rule set out in DPP v Majewski that a person can not rely on a mistake induced by voluntary intoxication
- 4There is no requirement that the person entitled to consent be honestE) R v Denton [1981] The appellant set light to some machinery at his place of employment causing £40,000 worth of damage. He then gave himself in to the police and said that he had deliberately done so because the business was in financial difficulty and he thought that setting fire to the machinery would help out the employer. The employer had hinted that it would be desirable if the machinery was put out of action and that there was nothing like a good fire to improve the financial position of the business. The trial judge ruled that the word 'entitled' to consent in s.5(2)was qualified with the word 'honestly'. The defendant therefore pleaded guilty to criminal damage by arson and appealed the judge’s ruling requiring honesty.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Ohne Titel, erstellt von Sarudzai Munhund am 09/03/2015.
- Erstellt von
- Sarudzai Munhund
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung