Criminal Damage Flashcards
(11 cards)
1
Q
Case: Honest belief in the consent of the owner
A
- Denton
- D set fire to employer’s cotton mill. His employer having apparently encouraged him to do so
- D believed he had the consent, established a lawful excuse
2
Q
Reference: “Would have consented had they known the destruction or damage and its consequences”
A
- AG’s Reference No.1 of 2023
- Addressed the scope of section 5(2)(a)
- Defendant must have genuinely believed, at the time of the act, the owner would have consented - not might or should have
- The circumstances must directly relate to the damage itself, not broader political or ethical motivations
3
Q
Case: What if the belief in consent is a result of voluntary intoxication?
A
- Jaggard v Dickinson [1980]
- Staying at her friend’s house who is not there, and said treat his house like her own
- Intoxicated, she breaks into wrong house
- Reinforced importance that belief was honestly held
- Belief can be just as honestly held when based on intoxication
4
Q
Case: Use of force against person in protection of property
A
- Faraj [2007]
- D forcibly detained V - a genuine gas repair man - because he believed him to be a burglar
- Entitled to benefit from his genuine, mistaken belief in line with s76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
5
Q
Case: “Acting in order to protect property”
A
- Chamberlain v Lindon [1998]
- D demolished wall that restricted his vehicular access to right of way
- Court accepted that he was “acting in order to protect his right of way”
6
Q
Case: Objective gloss added to acting “in order to protect property”
A
- Hunt [1977]
- Faulty fire alarm in care home, lit bed
- D’s actions themselves must objectively be seen as capable of protecting property
7
Q
Case: Property D seeks to protect must be believed to belong to themselves or another
A
- Cresswell v DPP
- Can even be the owner of the property being damaged
- Unavailable when damaging badger traps to protect wild badgers because badger were not considered property belonging to anyone
8
Q
Case: Immediate need of protection
A
- Hill [1988]
- Broke into V’s house to telephone fire brigade about neighbour’s house on fire
- Courts have held that the need for “immediate” protection is an objective one for the jury
- Contrasting with Chamberlain where wall immediately blocked access
9
Q
Case: Reasonable means of protection
A
- Jones and others
- Subjective test as to D’s belief in the reasonableness of the means
10
Q
AG’s reference No.1 of 2022: Criminal damage and the right to protest
A
- Regarding the damage to the Edward Coulston statue in Bristol (BLM protests)
- Court of Appeal ruled that causing significant damage or inflicting damage in a violent or non-peaceful manner does not attract convention protection under freedom of expression
11
Q
Lord Burnett CJ on criminal damage and the right to protest
A
- Theoretically possible that minor or trivial damage to property may require an assessment as to a proportionate response in the context of convention rights
