Crim Damage MCQs Flashcards
A woman tips some cooking oil from her second floor flat onto the pavement below to avoid blocking the drains with fat. A man slips on the oil and breaks his hip.
What is test for the woman to be reckless as to causing physical harm?
The risk of causing physical harm which she took must be an unreasonable one when weighed against the social utility in not blocking drains with fat
She must have seen the risk of causing physical harm and a reasonable person must consider the risk an unreasonable one to take
She must have given no thought to the risk of causing physical harm and the risk must be an unreasonable one to take
She must have seen the risk of causing physical harm and the risk she saw must be an unreasonable one to take
She must have seen the risk of causing physical harm and went ahead anyway
She must have seen the risk of causing physical harm and the risk she saw must be an unreasonable one to take
Correct. This is the test from R v G: a defendant is reckless with respect to a result when aware of a risk that it will occur and it is, in all the circumstances known to the defendant, unreasonable to take the risk. The first issue is judged subjectively; the second, objectively.
The other options, while plausible are incorrect, often because they are not accurate enough.
The question of whether the risk is an unreasonable one to take, is judged objectively in the light of the circumstances known to the defendant.
Both elements of the test must be satisfied. So, the defendant must see the risk and it must be an unreasonable one to take in the circumstances known to her.
If the defendant has given no thought to the possibility of the risk, then she does not see the risk and so is not reckless as one element of the test is missing.
The fact that the defendant sees the risk and goes ahead anyway is not evidence of recklessness. The question is whether the risk recognised by the defendant is an objectively unreasonable one to take in the circumstances known to the defendant.
A woman owns a coffee shop in her local town. A new coffee shop is due to open at the other end of the high street which is likely to affect the woman’s business. Late one night, the day before the new café is due to open, the woman decided to paint offensive language on the windows to ruin the opening day. She knows the paint will wash off the windows easily but just wanted to cause a nuisance on the first day and hopefully deter some customers.
Which of the following correctly sets out whether the woman may be liable for criminal damage?
The woman will be liable as the paint has caused damage that will take time and effort to clean.
The woman will not be liable as the paint can easily be cleaned.
The woman will not be liable as the paint has not destroyed the shop.
The woman will be liable as the paint has destroyed the windows.
The woman will not be liable as the paint has only caused temporary damage.
The woman will be liable as the paint has caused damage that will take time and effort to clean.
Correct
Correct. Damage includes anything that temporarily impairs the usefulness of the item, here the windows have been damaged as they are temproarily rendered useless and can only be restored to their previous state by spending money or time and effort to clean them.
A man lives in a town with two rival football teams, the Town and Rangers teams. He and most of the people in his road are avid supporters of the Town team and live near the Town stadium, where the two teams are playing each other on Saturday. On Friday night the man gets very drunk and sprays, in red paint, on his neighbour’s house, ‘If any Rangers supporters come near here, we will break their legs!’ The man’s neighbour supports the Town team and the man thinks his neighbour will be pleased. In fact, the neighbour is furious.
If the man is charged with simple criminal damage, can he rely on the lawful excuse defence of belief in the owner’s consent?
Yes- the man believes the neighbour will consent to the damage to the property
No- the man cannot use the defence as he is intoxicated
No- the man cannot use the defence as his belief is not a reasonable one
Yes- the reasonable person would believe the neighbour will consent to the damage
No- the man cannot use the defence because the neighbour does not consent
Yes- the man believes the neighbour will consent to the damage to the property
Correct. The defence of lawful excuse is set out in s 5 Criminal Damage Act 1971 and s 5(2)(a) is relevant here: the defendant acts in the belief that the owner consents to the damage or would do so if he knew of the damage and its circumstances. It is immaterial whether the belief is justified or not, so long as it is honestly held, s 5(3), and it does not matter that the man makes a mistake due to intoxication, see Jaggard v Dickinson.
The other options are incorrect.
The test is applied subjectively and if the defendant honestly believes that they have the owner’s consent to cause damage, the defence will apply even when that belief arises out of a drunken mistake.
The defence will also apply if the defendant honestly believes he has the owner’s consent for the damage.
The belief in consent does not have to be a reasonable one, so long as it is honest.
The defence is based on the defendant’s belief in consent. It is immaterial whether the owner does or does not consent to the damage in fact.
A man puts a lighted rag through a letter box. He wants to burn the house down. The flames destroy a rug and damages a chair and some coats in the hall, but all the doors from the hall are shut and the fire eventually burns itself out on the stone floor beneath the rug.
Is the man criminally liable for aggravated arson?
The man will not be liable as no life was endangered
The man will be liable if he intended or was reckless as to endangering life by burning the house down
The man will be liable because when damage is caused by fire, there is always a risk to life from the damaged property
The man will be liable if he intended or it was virtually certain that life would be endangered by burning the house down
The man will be liable because even if he did not intend to endanger life by the damaged property, there was an obvious risk of endangering life by burning the house down
The man will be liable if he intended or was reckless as to endangering life by burning the house down
Correct. See R v Dudley. The words destruction and damage in s 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 refer to the destruction and damage intentionally or recklessly caused (burning down the house), not the destruction and damage which actually occurred (damage done to the rug, chair and coats). The man’s mens rea as to endangering life will be established by reference to the damage he intended or saw a risk of causing.
The other options are incorrect.
For aggravated criminal damage or aggravated arson, no life need be endangered in fact, R v Sangha.
If the man did not directly intend to endanger life, recklessness should be considered as an alternative rather than oblique intention.
What Lord Bridge said in R v Steer, is that in cases where D intended or saw a risk of endangering life by fire it will be from damaged property. He did not say that whenever D damaged property by fire there would be a risk of endangering life.
Where it is alleged that the defendant was reckless as to endangering life by the damage, the test as set out in R v G will be applied. Consider first whether the defendant did see the risk. Next, apply the objective test – was the risk seen by the defendant a reasonable one to take in the circumstances known to the defendant?
A farmer decided to go out shooting vermin on his farm. Prior to setting off he decided to have a practice shot and aimed the gun at the window of a barn that he used to keep machinery in. He fired the shot and the window broke.
Can the farmer be liable for criminal damage?
No, as he did not caused damage to property belonging to another.
Yes, as he has damaged the window of the barn.
Yes, as he has destroyed the window of the barn.
No, as he lacks the mens rea for criminal damage, his intention to practice his shooting.
No, as he has a lawful excuse in that he consented to the damage being caused.
No, as he did not caused damage to property belonging to another.
Correct. This would be basic criminal damage and in order to be guilty, the property must belong to someone other than the person who has caused the damage. Here, the barn belongs to the farmer who has caused the damage, so he cannot be liable.
