Fichas
Sin título
Fichas del conjunto (4)
- 1PropertyThe definition of property for the purposes of criminal damage is found in s.10(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971. Property is tangible property. It includes real property (land and buildings) and personal property. Money is also included. Animals are only included if they are tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity and under s.10(1)(b) wild mushrooms, fruit, flowers, foliage and plants are excluded.
- 2I) Belonging to another D) S.10(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides that property will be regarded as belonging to any person having: a). custody or control of it, b). a proprietary right or interest in it c). a charge on itE) R v Smith [1974] The appellant was a tenant in a ground floor flat. With consent of the land lord, he purchased some electrical wiring, roofing equipment, wall panels and flooring and installed them into the conservatory. By installing these items, in law they become the property of the land lord. as they form part of the flat. When the tenancy came to an end, the appellant removed the wiring which involved damaging the wall panels. He was convicted of criminal damage and appealed contending he lacked the mens rea of the offence as he believed that since he had paid for the panels he had a right to damage them.
- 3I) Intention D) the defendant must intend to destroy or damage property belong to antherE) Pembliton (1874) The defendant threw some stones into a crowd of people. He wanted to disperse the crowd. A stone hit and smashed a window. He was convicted of criminal damage and appealed.
Conviction quashed. His mens rea for an offence against the person could not be transferred to a property offence as they are entirely different offences. - 4I) Recklessness D) Originally a subjective test was applied to both offences of simple criminal damage and criminal damage by arsonE) Elliott v C [1983] The defendant was a 14-year old girl of low intelligence who had started a fire in a shed. She had poured white spirit on the floor and set it alight. The magistrates applied the test laid down in R v Caldwell but inferred that in his reference to "an obvious risk" Lord Diplock had meant a risk which was obvious to the particular defendant. They acquitted the defendant because they found that the defendant had given no thought at the time to the possibility of there being a risk that the shed and contents would be destroyed, and this risk would not have been obvious to her or appreciated by her if she had thought about the matter. The prosecution appealed by way of case stated.
Información
- Descripción
- Fichas sobre Sin título, creado por Sarudzai Munhund el 09/03/2015.
- Creado por
- Sarudzai Munhund
- Visitas
- 0
- Valoración