Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Criminal Damage - Coggle Diagram

- - - - R v Henderson and Batley
        
        Dumping rubbish that incurred cost to remove was considered damage to land
  - - - Spit was insufficient to amount to damage. Damage cannot be purely nominal (minimal)
    - - Not criminal damage if it does not diminish the value or usefulness of what was damaged
    - - Graffiti can have artistic merit. It is up to a jury to decide if it is damage or not.
    - - Damaged a clamp when removing it from his car. this amounts to damage
    - - Temporary water damage to cloth can amount to damage if work must be done to make it usable again
- - - - R v Jones (2004): raised a defense under **S5(2)(b) stating they were trying to prevent the military invasion of Iraq
        
        HoL introduced subjective element. Defendants could only raise a lawful excuse if:
        
        They acted to prevent damage to property (but the court refused to rule on whether the war on Iraq was lawful)
        
        They believed that property in Iraq was in immediate need of protection
        
        They believed that the property damage was reasonable by having regard to all the circumstances
      - R v Hill and Hall: convicted of cutting the perimeter fence in order to protest
        
        Criticism: distorting the clear wording of the Act in order to criminalise protest
      - R v Kelleher (2003): raise a defense to say his aim is to draw attention to Thatcher's policies but since his motive was not a genuine belief that he was protecting the property, he was still convicted
- - - - Two separate acts, one being criminal damage and one endangering a life cannot be considered aggravated criminal damage.
    - - The act endangering the life must also have caused damage to property (as defined by the act)
    - - It only matter if intention or recklessness is present as to endanger a life. Not the success of the act.
- - - - (a) to destroy or damage any property belonging to that other or a third person; or
      - (b) to destroy or damage his own property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of that other or third person
        
        shall be guilty of an offence
    - - D makes an unlawful threat to destroy or damage property belonging to another
      - D makes a threat to damage their own or the user's property in a way which they know is likely to endanger a life
    - - intention that the other would be put in fear the threat would be carried out
  - - - (a) to destroy or damage any property belonging to some other person
      - (b) to destroy or damage his own or the user's property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of some other person
        
        shall be guilty of an offence
    - - Possession of the article to be used
    - - Intention to use it to damage property
- - - - s5(a)belief of consent to damage or destruction
        
        s5(a) at time of act or acts constituting the offence, he believed person who he believes to be entitled to consent to the destruction or damage of property in question, would have consented knowing the destruction or damage and it's circumstances
      - s5(b) Belief in protection of property
        
        s5(b)(ii) Means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable reguarding all circummstances
        
        s5(b)(i) belief that the property, right or interest was in need of protection
        
        Immediacy of necessity of damage must be objectively tested to be lawful
        
        Lloyd & DPP (1982)
      - This belief must be subjectively and honestly held.