Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Criminal Damage (Criminal Damage - s1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 (Actus…

- - - - No definition in Act - examples from cases
        
        Samuel v Stubbs - "it is unncessary to establish such... damage as renders the property useless or prevents it from serving its normal function" - depends on circumstances of each case, nature of the article and mode by which it was affected
        
        A (a juvenile) v R - there has to be some expense on the part of the owner to resore property to its previous condition - here spat on policeman's waterproof coat - could wipe off
        
        Hardman v Chief Constable Avon & Somerset - illustrated in Roe v Kingerlee - damage need not be permanent - first was graffiti, the second was smearing mud in prison cell
        
        Morphitis v Salmon - "[Criminal damage includes] not only permanent or temporary physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness" - illustrated in Fiak - flooded toilets in prison - damage because both blanket and floor were temporarily unusable
    - - CDA 1971 - s10(1) - property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money
      - Whiteley - does not include data stored on computer
    - - CDA 1971 s 10(2)
        
        a) Any person having custody or control
        
        If joint owners, can also be charged for damaging own property
        
        b) Any proprietary right or interest (not equitable, unless trust)
        
        c) Having a charge on it aka mortgage
  - - - Intention - Moloney - aim or purpose
      - Recklessness - R v G - subjectively aware of risk - objectively takes risk aka unreasonable in circumstances known to him
      - Smith - must apply to all elements of the AR - here thought property belonged to him, but if install things as a tenant, they become the landlord's - conviction quashed because not subjectively aware
  - - - s5(2)(a) - belief in owner's consent
        
        Unreasonable mistake due to voluntary intoxication - Jaggard v Dickinson and s5(3) - immaterial whether justified or not as long as honest belief
        
        Defendant's motive - Denton - motive irrelevant as long as honestly believes consented or would have consented - even if motive was to commit fraud
        
        Limits on defence - Blake v DPP - said believed carrying out instructions of God - not allowed
      - s5(2)(b) - protection of property
        
        Only protection of property - Baker v Wilkins - here was acting to save child
        
        The accused must believe that the property was in immeditate need of protection (subjective test)
        
        Johnson v DPP
        
        The accused must believe that the means of protection adopted are reasonable (subjective test) - s5(3)
        
        Damage caused by accused must be (objectively) capable of protecting the property
        
        Hunt - started fire to prove fire alarm didn't work
        
        Hill and Hall - too remote
- - - - Can commit aggravated damage to own property
  - - - Sangha - set fire to furniture in flat - other occupants out and adjacent flats specially constructed - about whether intended or was reckless, not whether life actually endangered
      - Dudley - about destruction or damage intended, not actually caused
    - - Steer - any damage foreseen had been by bullets fired not damage to property - has to be causal link
        
        Where damage caused by fire, risk to life will always be from damaged property
      - Webster