Lawful excuse defence Flashcards
What are 2 example of the use of this defence?
- Firefighters damaging a car to save someone who is inside
- Someone causing damage to an object when they have used it for self-defence
Can this defence be used for aggravated criminal damage?
- No
What act contains this defence?
- The criminal Damage act 1971
What two sections of the CDA 1971 cover Lawful excuse and what do they say?
- S5(2a) - Damaging or destroying property believing the owner has or would have consented
- S5(2b) - Damaging or destroying property in order to protect other property that is in immediate need of protection
Denton 1982
- He set fire to a cotton mill that the owner had told him to do as they were in financial difficulty
- TJ said lawful excuse was not available
- Appealed and COA agreed and quashed conviction
What does Section 5(3) say?
- It is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not as long as it was honestly held
Jaggard v Dickinson 1981
- She made a mistake in belief in consent due to intoxication
- Taxi driver dropped her off outside wrong house so she smashed front and back windows to get in
- TJ ruled intoxication was no defence
- Appealed and conviction quashed as the defence needed to consider the D’s actual belief regardless of intoxication
Blake v DPP 1993
- Blake was a vicar protesting the Iraq war and wrote on a pillar outside the houses of parliament
- Claimed he had sought guidance in his prayers from god and since god owned everything he had consent
- Also claimed he had damaged property to protect others ( V’s of war)
- Appealed but was dismissed as God can not be used as an excuse under Domestic law of England
Hill and Hall 1989 (leading case)
- Possessing a hacksaw blade intending to commit criminal damage
- Claimed the damage was to protect their homes from a nuclear bomb and so they were trying to get the Americans to leave their base camp
- Appeal failed and convictions were upheld
- COA aimed to place tight rules on the use of the defence
- created a two part test
What was the 2 part test set out in Hill and Hall 1989?
1- What was the D’s belief? (subjective)
2- Then it is for the TJ to decide objectively whether it could be said that what was believed by the D could amount to something done to protect property that is in immediate need of protection
Why is the 2 part test in Hill and Hall controversial?
- It contradicts what was said in section 5(3)
Kelleher 2003
- Cut of thatcher statue head with a cricket bat
- £10,000 to repair
- D argued lawful excuse but TJ said no
- The property that he was ‘protecting’ (the UK) was too remote
- Hill and Hall was upheld and so was the conviction
Kingsnorth case 2007
- Greenpeace climbed chimney stacks to write ‘Gordon bin it’ down the side to abandon coal fired power stations
- Had lawful excuse to protect the environment
- £30,000 Damage caused
