Criminal Damage

Question 0

Aggravated Criminal Damage

Answer 0

Intending by the destruction of property to endanger life, or being reckless as to it.

Question 1

Criminal Damage Act 1971 Section 1

Answer 1

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intentionally or recklessly.

Question 2

R v Woolcock 1977

Answer 2

D caught pulling nails out if metal sheeting of abandoned premises.
Nails at the scene found to be bent.
Held: No evidence that D had caused the damage.
If he had, not criminal damage in law.

Question 3

A v R 1978

Answer 3

A alleged to have spat on officer’s raincoat.
Held: No case to answer.
Spit could be wiped with damp cloth.
Coat not rendered imperfect or inoperative.

Question 4

Chamberlain v Lindon (1998)

Answer 4

V sold part of his land to D.
D entitled to vehicular and pedestrian access.
Dispute arose over right of way.
V built wall along boundary of land, restricting access and trapping a vehicle on D’s property.
D attempted to resolve the dispute, informed V of intention to demolish the wall, later doing so.
V pressed charges of criminal damage.
Held: D believed himself to be acting reasonably, done to protect his right of way.
D attempted reason, the longer the wall remained the more urgent the need to remove it.
D held to have lawful excuse.
V appealed, dismissed.

Question 5

Cox v Riley 1986

Answer 5

D erased program from circuit board or computerised saw, rendering it inoperable.
Convicted of criminal damage.
Appeal: Program not tangible, cannot fall within the 1971 Act.
Held: Saw being inoperable constituted damage within the act, D rightly convicted.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 6

Morphitis v Salmon 1989

Answer 6

D removed a bar and upright from scaffolding.
Charged w/ criminal damage.
Held, allowing appeal; Could cause damage to whole structure.
Could cause damage to parts themselves.
Neither occurred, no case to answer.

Question 7

Gayford v Chouler 1898

Answer 7

D1/2 walked across a field owned by V.
V informed them they had no right to go there, they continued regardless.
Convicted of Malicious injuries to property, damaged grass.
Appeal: Grass falls under same provision as wild mushrooms, does not constitute property.
Held: Damage done, was wilful and malicious.
Conviction sound.

Question 8

Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset 1986

Answer 8

Defendants painted silhouettes on pavement for protest.
Soluble paint, rain would have washed away.
Local authority cleaned using jets.
Held on appeal: Damage within 1972 act.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 9

Jaggard v Dickinson 1980

Answer 9

D given permission to use house as her own.
Drunkenly tried to gain entry to neighbours house.
Convicted of Criminal Damage after breaking two windows.
Defence: Honest belief in consent.
Held: Belief brought about by intoxication. Convicted.
Appeal: Defence is one of honest belief.
Intoxication negatives mens rea, not at issue.
Appeal allowed.
Conviction quashed.

Question 10

R v Smith 1974

Answer 10

D made adjustments to the flat he was renting.
In law those improvements became property of the landlord.
Upon leaving D damaged the panelling recovering wiring for speakers.
Believed it was his property, entitled.
Convicted of criminal damage.
Held on appeal that D’s excuse was lawful so long as it was honestly held.
Conviction quashed.

Question 11

R v Miller 1983

Answer 11

D lived in unoccupied house.
Lit cigarette, fell asleep, setting mattress alight.
Woke up, didn’t extinguish, moved to another room.
Held on appeal: D reckless upon becoming aware of situation.
Assumed responsibility of own act.