Basic criminal damage: Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Basic criminal damage: Criminal Damage Act 1971.

1. 4 offences: basic offence: S1(1), aggravated offence S1(2), basic offence of arson (S1(3) and S1(1), agg arson S1(3) and S1(2).

2. Basic offence: S1(1) CDA '71 states that: a person is guilty if he, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages property belonging to another intending or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged. AR: destroy or damage, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse. MR: Intention/recklessness as to destroying/damaging property belonging to another.

   • Destroy or damage: no definition of destroy in Act but widely accepted to include making property useless to that it cannot fulfil its purpose. Damage: no definition in Act. Blake v DPP: cost, effort, time to remove to remove writing on pillars outside HoP. A v R: didn't amount to damage, took little time, money and effort to remove spit by wiping uniform. Morphitis v Salmon: scratch on scaffolding pole didn't amount to damage as use, appearance, value not been affected by scratch- something to consider.

3. Property: S10 (1) defines property, must be tangible: personal, real, money, tamed animals & carcasses. NOT intangible, unclear on wild flowers etc.

4. Belonging to another: S10(2): property is treated as belonging to another to any person if: have custody or control or, proprietary right or interest, or having a charge on the property. For a basic offence a person cannot be guilty if the property they damage is their own, however a co-owner can be guilty of damaging their property as the other owner has a prop right/interest in the property. Smith: D had damaged the landlords property.

5. Without lawful excuse: general defences such as self defence and duress will provide D with a lawful excuse for damaging or destroying property. s5(2) provides 2 specific lawful excuses i.e. defences in relation to the basic offence, both of which are based on D's belief so are subjective. S5(2a) says D believed that the owner would've consented to the damage. Denton: D believed that they genuinely wanted him to do it (burn down mill). S5 (3) makes it clear that D is still able to rely on this defence even if the reason D thought V consented was because D was intox- as long as D's belief was honestly held. Jaggard v Dickson: court take your actual mindset so D could rely on intox belief, as was genuine. S5 (2b) says D believes other property is at risk and in need of immediate protection and what D did was reasonable in all circumstances to protect it. Chamberlain v Lindon: breaking a car window to protect a dog. Blake v DPP: not successful in either exceptions as God wasn't consenting

   • and wasn't protecting property of the Gulf.

6. Without lawful excuse: Baker: couldn't rely on S5 (2b) as children aren't property.

7. MR: Intention or recklessness as to damaging/destroying property belonging to another. Intention: Pembliton: acquitted as didn't intend to damage property, was reckless. Recklessness: R v G and R: D's not reckless as didn't foresee the risk- Cunningham: recklessness is defined in Cunningham as confirmed by G and R.