Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Criminal damage offences - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Samuels v Stubbs- must take into account circumstances of each case, nature of the article/property, mode of which it was affected. As long has the property has suffered some harm, it does not need to be proved that it has become useless or can’t do it’s usual job
      - Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon- painting silhouettes on a pavement, even though the silhouettes would have washed away with the rain eventually, time and money had been spent on a graffiti squad to clean the pavements. Damage need not be permanent.
      - Roe v Kingerlee- mud spread on walls of a police cell cost £7 to remove and was held to be damage
      - A (a juvenile) v R- spitting on a policeman’s raincoat was not criminal damage as the spittle could be wiped away without leaving a mark
      - Morphitis v Salmon- criminal damage includes not only physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness
      - Fiak- stuffing a blanket down a toilet in a cell and flushing until flooding the cell was criminal damage as despite that the floor was waterproof and blanket washable, both were made temporarily unusable by D’s actions
    - - S10(1) property of a tangible nature, whether real (buildings, land fixtures and fittings) or personal, including money (a) Including wild creatures which have been tamed or are ordinarily kept in captivity, and any other wild creatures or their carcasses if, but only if, they have been reduced into possession which has not been lost or abandoned or are in the course of being reduced into possession but (b) (b) Not including mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land (mushroom includes fungus and plant includes any shrub or tree)
      - R v Whitely- information does not fall within property
    - - S10(2) property shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as belonging to any person (a) having custody or control of it (b) having proprietary interest/right (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest) or (c) having a charge on it
  - - - Intention given it’s ordinary meaning (Moloney) D’s aim or purpose
      - Recklessness test R v G: - At the time of committing the actus reus, the accused was subjectively aware of a risk; and
        
        In the circumstances known to the accused, it was objectively unreasonable for the accused to take that risk
      - R v Smith- had an honest mistaken belief that the property was his own- he added parts with the landlord’s consent and believed the property then belonged to him when he destroyed it. Ignorance of the civil law can protect liability
- - - - S5(3) D’s belief need not be reasonable. It is only necessary for it to be honestly held
      - Intoxication: Jaggard v Dickinson- broke a window as they believed the house was that of a friend with whom she was staying- valid defence, even though belief unreasonable and caused by intoxication
      - R v Denton- provided they honestly believes the owner has consented- motive is irrelevant, even where motive is to perpetuate fraud
      - Blake v DPP- it must be an honest belief the owner consented, not someone else, like God
    - - R v Baker & Wilkins- only applies to protecting property, not people. Pet dog or cat may be different as these count as property, children are not
      - S5(2)(b)(i) the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
        
        Johnson v DPP- a squatter damaging a door while attempting to fix the locks could not use this defence, he argued there had been high number of thefts in the area. The property was not in immediate need of protection
      - S5(2)(b)(ii) the means of protection adopted or prosed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances
        
        S5(3) for the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held ASK
      - D must act to protect property, D must believe the property was in need of immediate protection, D must believe the means of protection adopted are reasonable, damage caused by D must be objectively capable of protecting the property (R v Hunt)
- - - - R v Steer- danger by fire counts as danger arising from damage to the property. There has to be a casual link between damage to property and the danger to life