Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Property offences (Criminal damage ( Criminal damage (Actus reus…

- - - - Criminal damage is defined in S(1) of the Criminal damage act 1971
      - "A person who without lawful excuse destroys/damages property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage or being reckless** as to whether property is being destroyed or damaged.
    - - Destroys/damages, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse
      - Destroys/damages
        
        Damage is required to be sufficient (A v R)
        
        Damage should effect the value or usefulness (Morphitis v Salmon)
        
        It is also considered damage if it has to be paid for to fix the property. (Hardman v Chief constable of Avon and Somerset constabulary)
      - Property
        
        Defined in S10(1) of the CDA 1971
        
        R v Whitley - Disks are seen as tangible property
        
        The criminal damage doesn't have to be tangible, only the actual property
      - Belonging to another
        
        Defined?
        
        This is defined in S10(2) of the CDA act 1971
        
        Where one has custody or control; or has a proprietary right or interest of it; or has charge of it
      - Without lawful excuse
        
        Defined in S5(2) of CDA 1971
        
        Two sections that provide lawful excuse:
        
        S5(2)a - Where D believes that the owner would genuinely consent to the damage
        
        S5(2)b - Allows damage to happen when the D believes other property was in need of immediate need of protection
        
        Has to be immediate (R v Hill & Hall)
    - - Two parts to the MR of Criminal damage: Intent, recklessness
      - Intend - D must intend to cause damage or destruction to the property (R v Smith)
      - Recklessness - Cunningham recklessness test (used to be objective, and after R v R & G, its not)
        
        Did the D realise that his/her actions were reckless and could have led to some hard/was a risk of hard?
  - - - Defined in S1(2) of the CDA 1971
      - "A person who without lawful excuse intends to or is reckless as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another or them self. Also, intending to or putting the life of another in danger."
    - - The AR is the same to as normal criminal damage except that a life needs to be intended to be endangered or is reckless to endangering.
      - R v Sangha
        
        Life doesn't actually need to be endangered
    - - Same as normal criminal damage and also requires a life to be intended or reckless to be endangered
      - R v Warwick
  - - - Defined in S1(3) of the CDA 1971
        
        "Destroying or damaging property by fire"
    - - Damage/destruction by fire
        
        Singeing material fire = enough for arson
        
        Smoke blackening property is NOT arson
    - - D intends/reckless as to damaging property by fire. MR can be formed after the fire has started.
      - R v Miller
- - - - S9(1)b - he/she enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser and commits or attempts an ulterior offence
      - S9(1)a - he/she enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intent to commit one of the ulterior offences
  - - - Not defined by the Theft act, but it must be substantial and effective (R v Collins, R v Brown - mostly effective)
      - R v Ryan - D has to only be in a position where he/she is able to commit an ulterior offence... the rest is up to the jury
    - - There are two main types of buildings which can be burgled.
        
        Dwelling (regular house) - max 14 years imprisonment
        
        Non-dwelling (company, or organisation building) - max 10 years imprisonment
      - S9(4) - inhabitated vehicles...apply to such vehicle/vessel at times where the person is having habitation in it...as well as times when he is not
      - Stevens v Gourley - Judge Byle > "a structure of considerable size... intended to be permanent...or at least for a considerable amount of time"
      - Contrasting cases - B & S v Leathley (Storange container, NO WHEELS and Norfolk constablulary v Seekings and Gould (2 lorry trailers, HAD WHEELS*
    - - When he/she enters a part of a building that they are not permitted to be in (R v Walkington).
    - - He/she is counted as a trespasser if he/she enters a building beyond given permission (R v Jones & Smith)
- - - - The Fraud act 2005 was established after the Law Commission report 2002 which criticised the previous 8 deception offences.
      - There are three main sections that need to be breached in order to be guilty of Fraud.
        
        S2 - Fraud by false representation
        
        S3 - Fraud by failing to disclose information
        
        S4 - Fraud by abuse of position
        
        However, in all the D's methods of committing the offence must be dishonest and with intent to
        
        cause loss to another
        
        expose another to a risk of loss
        
        gain for himself or another
  - - - S2(3) - Representation can be made as to fact (misleading description of a worthless painting) or law (misleading description of a statutory provision)
        
        Opinions do not count as a representation of fact
      - Representations can be expressed (eg. words said, written, phishing e-mails) or implied (Eg. person implies payment if they eat at a restaurant)
        
        Representations can also be to the state of mind of the representative or another
      - According to the 2002 Fraud act, a representation can be false if
        
        If it is untrue/misleading
        
        AND the person making it knows this
    - - There are three main parts to the MR of Fraud by false representation
        
        The D must make this representation DISHONESTLY
        
        Best way to figure this out is the Ghosh test
        
        The Ghosh test is a two-part objective and subjective test
        
        Objective - Was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable people?
        
        Subjective - Did D realise that reasonable + prudent people would consider this to be dishonest/unreasonable?
        
        HOWEVER, the Ghosh test has now been taken out of the test for dishonesty after the case of Ivey v Ghenting Casinos (2017)
        
        D must intend to make a gain...himself/another...cause loss...expose another to a risk of loss
        
        Gain/loss refers to...
        
        Money
        
        Other property
        
        Any economic benefit
        
        D must know that his/her representation is or might be untrue or misleading
  - - - Obtaining services for which payment is/will become due and failing to pay in whole or part
    - - There are three main parts to the MR of this crime
        
        D has to also be dishonest
        
        Ghosh test (Ivey v Ghenting casinos)
        
        D has to intent payment not to be made in full or part
        
        D has to have the knowledge that payment is or will be due
- - - - Firstly, the demand must be unwarranted
        
        S2(1) states that a demand is not warranted if the D believes:
        
        He had reasonable grounds to make the demand
        
        The use of menaces is a proper means of enforcing that demand
        
        Whether the D held this belief or not, is upto the jury to decide
        
        For example, if the D threatens a crime and is unaware that what they've threatened is illegal, then it is an unwarranted demand
      - Secondly, there must be a demand. What is a demand?
        
        A demand can be: Words spoken, words written, conduct
        
        Most demands are explicit, however, some can also be implicit
        
        R v Collister
        
        It is also considered a demand if any reasonable and ordinary person would recognise this to be a demand
        
        If a demand is posted, then the demand is said to have been made when the letter was posted, not received
        
        Tracey v DPP
    - - Threats of violence, exposure, damage to property
      - Lord Wright: "Threats of any actions detrimental or unpleasant to the person addressed"
        
        Throne v Motor Trade Association
      - Also, should influence the "mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage"
        
        Clear
      - Menaces is an ordinary English word that any jury should be able to understand
        
        It can still be blackmail if the information being exposed is untrue
        
        Cristie
  - - - Defined in S34 of the Theft act
      - This can extend to only money or other property"
      - Example of a gain: Given a job, not to be made redundant or fired, being handed money, jewellery etc