Criminal damage

Question 1

Criminal damage, actus reus:

Answer 1

1. Damage or destruction;
2. Property;
3. Belonging to another;
4. Without lawful excuse.

Question 2

R v Hunt:

Answer 2

Facts: D worried about insufficient fire safety precautions, but concerns were dismissed by management. Started a fire to draw attention to the inoperable fire alarms.
Principle: lawful excuse was not available as the defendant was motivated by a desire to draw attention to safety defects rather than to protect property. ‘In order to protect property’ was an objective question.

Question 3

Criminal damage, mens rea:

Answer 3

1. Intention;
2. Recklessness - R v G overruled Caldwell, replacing an objective test with a subjective test.
   Based on volitional risk taking, must be aware there is a risk property belonging to another will be damaged.
   Irrelevant if thinks damage is small.
   R v G contains explicit reference to ‘reasonable’ risk-taking’, e.g. destroying a wall to save a child in a car.

Question 4

Aggravated criminal damage, mens rea:

Answer 4

No need for life to be endangered, concerns the defendant’s state of mind not his actions;
The defendant must intend that life is endangered by the damage/destruction of property.

Question 5

R v Steer

Answer 5

Facts: as a result of a grudge with a former business partner, fired a rifle at windows of house, causing damage. Nobody inside injured.
Principle: it must be the damage to the property that endangers life, not the means by which the property is damaged. Therefore, the D must have intended to endanger life by smashing windows or foreseen a risk that life would be endangered by smashing windows. The means by which they are smashed are irrelevant.

Question 6

Distinction in means by which damage is caused:

Answer 6

The distinction the courts have made between ‘endangerment by criminal damage’ and ‘endangerment by the means used to cause the criminal damage’ has been criticised as a ‘dismal distinction’.