Criminal Damage

Overview Statutory offence – Criminal Damage Act 1971 Family of offences – Section 1 (1) – simple criminal damage – Section 1 (2) – aggravated criminal damage – Section 1 (3) & Section 1 (1) - simple arson – Section 1 (3) & Section 1 (2) – aggravated Arson

Simple criminal damage/ simple arson

overview Triable either way offence Max sentence of 10 years Damage considered in terms of cost Actus ReusMens Rea Damage/destroyIntention/recklessness as to damage PropertyKnowledge/ recklessness as to property belonging to another Belonging to another Damage/destruction by fireIntention/recklessness as to damage by fire

Actus Reus #1 Damage/destruction No statute definition Damage = broad meaning – Gayford (1898) Question of fact and degree Roe v Kingerlee (1986)

Actus Reus #1 Damage/destruction Damage – If rectification involves time, effort or money then it is damage – Effects can be temporary – Type should be taken into account Hardman v c.c of Avon (1986) Chalk on pavement = damage as council paid for it to be jet washed even though it would have washed away Fiak (2005) D damaged police cells by temporary impairing the usefulness of a cell by flooding them

Actus Reus #1 Damage/destruction Damage [2] A v R (1978) – Spittle on a uniform is not damage as effort required = minimal Morphitis v Salmon (1990) – Scratch on scaffolding could not amount to criminal damage because damage did not impair its usefulness or value

Actus Reus #1 Damage/destruction Destroy – Stronger than damage – Property made useless even if it is not 100% destroyed – E.g. Demolishing a building Breaking a machine Killing animals Mowing crops

Actus Reus #2 property Defined S.10 (1) of CDA 1971 Similar to theft but cases are non applicable 2 key differences 1.Land can be damaged but not stolen 2.Intangible rights can not be damaged but can be stolen

Actus Reus #3 belonging to another Defined s.10 (2) of CDA 1971 Similar to S5 TA 1968 Smith (1974) D cant be guilty of simple criminal damage, if he damages his own property Property must be solely owned if it is a joint enterprise then the offence is committed

Mens Rea #1 Intent reckless as to damage/destruction Mere damage/destruction of property is insufficient for conviction Prosecutor must show that D intended or was reckless to damage Pembilton (1874) – Not guilty of causing damage as he had no intention to damage the window even though he intended to throw the stone G and R (2003) – D has to realise the risk

Mens Rea #1 Intent reckless as to damage/destruction G and R (Cont) – D acts Reckless within the act in respect to 1.A circumstance when he is aware of a risk that does or will exist 2.A result he is aware that a risk will occur and in the circumstances known to him it is unreasonable for him to take the risk

Mens Rea #2 Knowledge/ reckless as to property belonging to another Smith – Honest belief that the property is D’s own negates this element of mens rea

Defences to the simple offences Section 5 (2) (a) Consent D genuinely believed that he was entitled to consent – D had consented Or – Would have consented (had they known all of the circumstances) R v Denton (1982) – D not guilty of damage and genuinely believed that p consented Jaggard and Dickinson (1981) – Regardless if mistake in belief was due to alcohol the consent is valid

Defences to the simple offences Section 5 (2) (b) protection of property – D honestly believed; Other property is at risk It is in need of protection Hunt (1978) What he did was reasonable in all circumstances – Defence must involve the protection of property Creswell and Curie (2006) – All other means of redress must have been explored before damage committed Blake (1993)

Aggravated criminal damage/ Arson

Background Same actus reus as the simple offence only D can be found guilty for damaging his own property Merrick (1995) No need to prove that life was in danger only that D intended or was reckless as to it Sangha (1998)

Mens Rea #1; Intent/reckless to damage/destroy Same as basic Mere damage/destroy of property is insufficient for conviction Prosecutor must show that in doing so intended to or was reckless as to damage

Mens rea #2 Endangering life through damage/destroy Steer (1987) – Section 1 (2) requires life to be endangered through the damage and not the act that caused it Dudley (1989) – At the time of the act he either intended to or was reckless as to endangering life through the damage

Arson

Arson Actus Reus#1 Damage/destruction by fire Same as Damage and destruction only it is caused by fire Actus Reus for simple Arson continues the same as simple criminal damage Same Defences available as criminal damage for the simple offence

Simple Arson Mens Rea #1 Intent reckless as to damage/destruction by fire Same as mens rea #1 only it is intention or recklessness to cause damage or destroy by fire

Aggravated Arson Mens Rea #1 Endangering life through damage or destruction through fire Miller (1983) – Arson can be committed by an omission where D accidently started a fire and failed