Basic Criminal Damage Cases

The case of [blank_start]GAYFORD v CHOULER[blank_end] states that property must be physically altered, harmed or impaired to be damaged.

The case of [blank_start]ROE v KINGERLEE[blank_end] states that the jury decides whether property has been destroyed or damaged.

The cases of [blank_start]ROE v KINGERLEE[blank_end] and [blank_start]HARDMAN[blank_end] state that it is likely to be criminal damage if it takes money time and/or effort to remove the damage

The case of [blank_start]FIAK[blank_end] states that it is criminal damage if the property is temporarily unfit for use.

The case of [blank_start]A (A JUVENILE) v R[blank_end] states that it is unlikely to be criminal damage if it requires no cost or effort to clean up.

The case of [blank_start]MORPHITIS v SALMON[blank_end] states that the purpose of property may be relevant as to whether it is criminal damage or not.

The case of [blank_start]JAGGARD v DICKINSON[blank_end] states that the belief of lawful excuse under s.5 (2) must be genuinely held, even if the belief wasn't reasonable.

The case of [blank_start]HUNT[blank_end] states that for the lawful excuse under s.5 (2) (b) D must destroy property belonging to another in order to protect other property in need of immediate protection.

The case of [blank_start]CRESSWELL AND CURRIE[blank_end] states that for lawful excuse under s.5 (2) (b) D must be protecting property.

The case of [blank_start]BAKER AND WILKINS[blank_end] states that D must be protecting property so lawful excuse under s.5 (2) (b) and not a person.

The case of [blank_start]PEMBLITON[blank_end] states the D must intend the damage caused and not merely the offence was caused the damage.

The case of [blank_start]SMITH[blank_end] states that D will lack the mens rea of criminal damage if he is under the mistaken belief that the property is his own.

The case of [blank_start]G AND R[blank_end] states that D can be reckless as to destroying property belonging to another.