Aggravated Criminal Damage Flashcards
(10 cards)
The actus reus of aggravated criminal damage under s 1(2) CDA 1971 is:
A. Destroying or damaging property to which the defendant has no title
B. Destroying or damaging any property, whether belonging to himself or another
C. Destroying or damaging property belonging to another only by fire
D. Destroying or damaging property with a firearm
B. Destroying or damaging any property, whether belonging to himself or another
Explanation: Section 1(2) extends the basic AR (“destroy or damage any property”) to include D’s own property as well as another’s
D fires bullets through a window. He foresaw the risk to life from broken glass but intended harm by bullets. Is this aggravated criminal damage?
A. Yes—because he foresaw danger from broken glass
B. No—danger must arise from the damaged property, not the bullets
C. Yes—any life-endangering means suffice
D. No—only fire damage qualifies
B. No—danger must arise from the damaged property, not the bullets
Explanation: In R v Steer, HL held s 1(2)(b) liability requires risk flowing from the damaged property itself, not from the instrument used
Which correctly states the mens rea of s 1(2) aggravated criminal damage?
A. Dishonesty in causing damage “and” intent to permanently deprive
B. Intention or recklessness as to damage “and” intention or recklessness as to endanger life
C. Recklessness as to damage only, provided damage is caused by fire
D. Intention to endanger life only, regardless of damage
B. Intention or recklessness as to damage “and” intention or recklessness as to endanger life
Explanation: S 1(2)(a) requires intent/recklessness as to damage; S 1(2)(b) requires intent/recklessness that life will be endangered by that damage
D sets fire to furniture in an empty flat, knowing it might endanger life if anyone were present. Nobody was ever there. Is this aggravated criminal damage?
A. No—no one was actually endangered
B. Yes—actual endangerment is irrelevant if D foresaw the risk
C. No—empty premises negate the offence
D. Yes—but only if adjacent flats were at risk
B. Yes—actual endangerment is irrelevant if D foresaw the risk
Explanation: R v Sangha confirmed that s 1(2)(b) focuses on D’s intent/recklessness to endanger life, not on whether life was actually endangered
D throws a fire-bomb but only causes trivial scorch marks. He intended serious damage and foresaw life-endangerment. Under s 1(2)(b), is he liable?
A. No—recklessness must relate to actual damage caused
B. Yes—liability attaches to the damage intended or foreseen, not only that caused
C. No—trivial damage cannot endanger life
D. Yes—but only if the scorch marks are in habitable rooms
B. Yes—liability attaches to the damage intended or foreseen, not only that caused
Explanation: In R v Dudley, the Court held s 1(2)(b) refers back to the damage D intended or was reckless about, not merely the trivial damage actually done
Under s 1(2) aggravated criminal damage, “property” includes:
A. Intangible things like information
B. Only property belonging to another
C. Any tangible property, including D’s own
D. Only buildings and fixtures
C. Any tangible property, including D’s own
Explanation: The AR expressly covers “any property” (tangible only) whether belonging to D or another
; intangible information is excluded.
Which defence is unavailable to aggravated criminal damage under s 1(2) CDA?
A. Honest belief in owner’s consent under s 5(2)(a)
B. Self-defence
C. Duress
D. Necessity
A. Honest belief in owner’s consent under s 5(2)(a)
Explanation: The specific s 5(2) defences (consent/protection) are disapplied for aggravated damage; only general defences (e.g. self-defence, duress) remain
What is the maximum sentence on indictment for aggravated criminal damage (or aggravated arson)?
A. 10 years’ imprisonment
B. Life imprisonment
C. Unlimited fine only
D. 7 years’ imprisonment
B. Life imprisonment
Explanation: Section 1(2) CDA provides that aggravated criminal damage/arson is punishable “by imprisonment for life” on indictment
For the life‐endangerment limb of s 1(2)(b) CDA, “recklessness” requires that D:
A. Subjectively foresaw a risk that life would be endangered by the damage
B. Objectively ought to have foreseen a risk to life
C. Was indifferent to the possibility of property damage
D. Knew that the property belonged to another
A. Subjectively foresaw a risk that life would be endangered by the damage
Explanation: Recklessness under s 1(2)(b) follows the subjective test from R v G [2003]: D must have actually foreseen the risk of endangering life by the damage, not merely that a reasonable person would have
The R v G [2003] test for recklessness applies to which elements of s 1(2) CDA?
A. Only to the damage limb (s 1(2)(a))
B. Only to the endangering‐life limb (s 1(2)(b))
C. To neither – a separate test exists for aggravated damage
D. To both the damage limb and the endangering‐life limb
D. To both the damage limb and the endangering‐life limb
Explanation: The subjective foresight test from R v G is applied both to whether D foresaw the risk of damaging the property (s 1(2)(a)) and to whether D foresaw that such damage would endanger life (s 1(2)(b))
