Flashcards
The Basic Offence
Flashcards do conjunto (4)
- 1S.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides that a person is guilty of criminal damage if they intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse.The actus reus of simple criminal damage consists of:
Destroy or damage
Property
Belonging to another - 2I) There must be destroy or damage D) There is no statutory definition of 'destroy or damage', however some principles have emerged from case law.E) Gayford v Chouler (1898) D walked across a grass field belonging to V. The grass was knee high; D trampled it and damaged it. D and another were crossing V's field from one footpath to another, despite being told by the owner not to do so.
It was held that he damage to the grass incurred expense of 6d (2 1/2p). Trampling grass, or any other vegetation, constituted damage. - 3Roe v Kingerlee (1986) The appellant smeared mud over the wall of a police cell. It cost £7.00 to have it cleaned off. He was convicted of Criminal Damage and appealed by way of case stating that no permanent damage had occurred and therefore no conviction for criminal damage could result.His conviction was upheld. The smearing of mud did amount to damage for the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. What constitutes damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is a matter for the Justices applying their common senseIf no damage in fact occurs then no liability for criminal damage can arise.
A (a Juvenile) v R (1978) The defendant spat on a policeman's rain coat. The spit could be easily wiped off and left no permanent damage. It was held that this did not constitute unlawful damage to property. It would have been different if the material was different and left a stain or required dry cleaning. - 4This applys to where the expense was unnecessarily incurred. Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon [1986] The defendants had drawn silhouettes on the pavement in water soluble paints. The paint would have worn off after a few days wear but the council arranged to have the pavement cleaned. As expense had been incurred to put the pavement back to its original condition, the painting did constitute damage.Damage includes temporary impairment or temporary loss of use. R v Fiak [2005]
The appellant had been arrested for being drunk whilst driving and assaulting a police officer. He was placed in a police cell over night. In protest he put the blanket down the toilet and repeatedly flushed the toilet to flood the cell. He argued that clean water on a waterproof floor and a blanket could not constitute damage. It was held that the blanket and cell were damaged since they could not be used until they had been dried.
Informações
- Descrição
- FlashCards sobre The Basic Offence, criado por Sarudzai Munhund em 09-03-2015.
- Criado por
- Sarudzai Munhund
- Visualizações
- 0
- Avaliação