7572295
Basic Criminal Damage - s.1 (1)
CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971
- Actus Reus
- Property must be destroyed or
damaged. The jury or magistrates
decide this: ROE v KINGERLEE
- Damage need only be slight and
temporary, but property must
be PHYSICALLY ALTERED,
HARMED OR IMPAIRED:
GAYFORD v CHOULER
- Property can be
damaged even if
nothing is broken
- It is likely to be criminal damage if it
costs money, time and/or effort to
remove: ROE v KINGERLEE /
HARDMAN V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF
AVON AND SOMERSET
CONSTABULARY
- It is likely to be criminal
damage if causes the property
to be temporarily unfit for use:
FIAK
- If there is no cost or effort in
cleaning up and the property can
continue to be used, ther eis
usually no offence: A (A
JUVENILE) v R
- The type and purpose of
the property may be
relevant: MORPHITIS v
SALMON
- Damage need only be slight and
temporary, but property must
be PHYSICALLY ALTERED,
HARMED OR IMPAIRED:
GAYFORD v CHOULER
- Property is defined in s.10
(1) of the CRIMINAL
DAMAGE ACT 1971.
- Property means
property of a tangible
nature, whether real
or personal, including
money
- Property includes wild
creatures which have
been tamed or which
are ordinarily kept in
captivity, as well as any
other wild creature or
carcass in someone's
possession
- Land can be damaged,
but cannot usually be
stolen
- Property for criminal damage does
not include mushrooms growing wild
on any land or flowers, fruit or foliage
of a plant growing wild on any land.
- Plant includes
trees and shrubs.
- Plant includes
trees and shrubs.
- Intangible rights
cannot be damaged.
- Property means
property of a tangible
nature, whether real
or personal, including
money
- Property must belong to another -
defined s.10 (2) CRIMINAL DAMAGE
ACT
- Having
custody or
control of it
- Having in it any proprietary
right or interest
- Having a
charge on it
- Having
custody or
control of it
- Property must be destroyed or
damaged. The jury or magistrates
decide this: ROE v KINGERLEE
- Mens Rea
- Must intend to destroy or
damage property belonging to
another
- It is not enough that D
intends to do the act which
causes damage unless he
intends to do the damage
itself: PEMBLITON
- D must intend to damage property
belonging to another. D will lack
the mens rea if he has the
mistaken belief that the property
belongs to him: SMITH
- Could prove that D was reckless
as to destroying or damaging
property belonging to another: G
AND R
- It is not enough that D
intends to do the act which
causes damage unless he
intends to do the damage
itself: PEMBLITON
- D must destroy or damage any
property belonging to another
without lawful excuse
- Act defines two lawful excuses in
s.5. Where D honestly believes
that:
- 1. The owner would have
consented to the destruction or
damage: s.5 (2) (a).
- 2. Other property was at risk and in
need of immediate protection and
what he did was reasonable in all the
circumstances: s.5 (2) (b).
- 1. The owner would have
consented to the destruction or
damage: s.5 (2) (a).
- It does not matter if the
believe was justified or not,
provided it was honestly held:
JAGGARD v DICKINSON
- For s.5 (2) (b) D must
destroy or damage property
belonging to another to
protect property he
honestly believed was in
immediate need of
protection: HUNT
- In order for s.5 (2) (b) to
succeed the item that D is
trying to protect must be
property: CRESSWELL AND
CURRIE v DPP
- The Act does not provide
a defence where D
believes he is acting to
protect a person from
harm: BAKER AND
WILKINS
- Act defines two lawful excuses in
s.5. Where D honestly believes
that:
- Must intend to destroy or
damage property belonging to
another
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.