Criminal Damage and Arson

Question 1

6.0 Criminal Damage and Arson

The Criminal Damage Act 1971

What are the three offences of criminal damage that was set out by this act?

Answer 1

Section 1 (1)

Simple criminal damage (6.1)

Section 1 (2)

Aggravated Criminal Damage (6.2)

Section 1 (3)

Criminal Damage By Arson (6.3)

Question 2

Section 1 (1) Simple Criminal Damage

6.1 Simple Criminal Damage

What does Section 1 (1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 provide?

Answer 2

“A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”

Question 3

Section 1 (1) Simple Criminal Damage

6.1 Simple Criminal Damage

Section 1 (1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 provide

Actus Reus

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

Find the Actus Reus

Answer 3

Destroys or damages

Property

Belonging to another

Question 4

6.1 Simple Criminal Damage

6.1.1 Actus Reus

Destroys or Damages (Roper V Knott 1898)

Answer 4

“It is not necessary for the property to become totally useless, a decrease in the value will be sufficient”

Question 5

6.1 Simple Criminal Damage

6.1.1 Actus Reus

Destroys or Damages

What did the case of A V R 1978 emphasise?

Answer 5

If the harm done to property does not have a degree of permanence, then it is not destroyed or damaged as per the offence and no liability can arise.

A V R 1978

D spat on a raincoat

As the coat was waterproof the saliva could be wiped clean off and left no stain

There was no destruction or damage to the property so no offence was established

Question 6

6.1 Simple Criminal Damage

6.1.1

Destroys or Damages

What temporary harm can amount to damage?

Answer 6

Temporary impairment or loss of use

R v Fiak 2005

D held overnight in police custody

D acted out a protest, putting the blanket he had been given down the cell toilet and flushing it repeatedly causing the toilet to block and the cell to flood

At trial:

“Soaking a blanket in clean water and flooding a hard water resistant floor and a blanket did not constitute damage as there was only “Temporary harm caused to the property”

Held:

Court disagreed, held that the term damage encapsulated temporary impairment of value or usefulness (Blanket and cell could not be used)

Question 7

6.1 Simple Criminal damage

6.1.1

Destroys or damages

What did the case law of R V Miller establish about this part of the Actus Reus?

Answer 7

“The Damage or Destruction does not have to be caused by a positive act as an omission will suffice”

R V Miller 1983

Miller was a squatter who after a long night, fell asleep on a mattress with a lighted cigarette in his hand.

The cigarette caught and set light to the mattress causing Miller to awake suddenly.

He saw the fire and simply got up and left, failing to take action to put out the fire which resultantly burned down the house.

Held:

He was held to have destroyed the property, despite no actual physical act undertaken on his part, merely a failure to put right the situation that had unfolded.

Question 8

6.1 Simple Criminal damage

6.1.1 Actus Reus

Property

What does Section 10 (1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 set out?

Answer 8

“Property means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money and—

(a) including wild creatures, which have been tamed or are ordinarily kept in captivity, and any other wild creatures or their carcasses if, but only if, they have been reduced into obsession which has not been lost or abandoned or are in the course of being reduced into possession; but

(b) not including mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land and;

Mushroom includes any fungus

Plant includes any shrub or tree

Question 9

6.1 Simple Criminal damage

6.1.1 Actus Reus

Belonging to Another

What does Section 10 (2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 set out?

Answer 9

Property will be taken to belong to any person in law that has:

(a) The custody or control of it;

(b) Any proprietary right or interest in it (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or

(c) a charge on it

Question 10

6.1 Simple Criminal damage

6.1.2 Mens Rea

Answer 10

Intention to damage property belonging to another or;

Being recklessness as to whether that property is damaged

Question 11

6.1 Simple Criminal damage

6.1.2 Mens Rea

Intention to damage property belonging to another

Answer 11

If the D honestly believes that the property is their own, then they are not liable for any subsequent damage.

R V Smith

The defendant was a tenant in the landlord’s property and with his consent he purchased and installed some fittings for the flat.

By law these fittings became the property of the landlord however the defendant did not know this and believed them to be his own, and accordingly removed them and took them with him when he moved.

He was charged with criminal damage but the charge was not upheld as he lacked themens readue to the fact he honestly believed the property to be his own.

Further there was no need for him to establish that his belief of ownership was reasonable.

It was sufficient that it was honestly held.

Question 12

6.1 Simple Criminal damage

6.1.2 Mens Rea

Recklessness

What test will be applied?

Answer 12

The test set out by Lord Bingham (R V G and R 2003)

“A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to:

(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;

(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that will occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk”

Question 13

6.2 Aggravated Criminal Damage

What does Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 provide that?….

Answer 13

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another

(a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and

(b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;

shall be guilty of an offence.

Question 14

6.2 Aggravated Criminal Damage

Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

In simpler terms

Answer 14

Aggravated criminal damage occurs where the offence of criminal damage set out above has been completed,

but there is an additional element present in that the destruction or damage results in an endangerment of life.

Question 15

6.2 Aggravated Criminal Damage

Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

6.2.1 Actus Reus

What is the Actus Reus within S2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer 15

Destroys or damages any property

Endangers life

Question 16

6.2 Aggravated Criminal Damage

Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

6.2.1 Actus Reus

Destroys or damages any property

Answer 16

Section 2

“A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another”

So the D can be liable even if they damage their own property

Question 17

6.2 Aggravated Criminal Damage

Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

6.2.1 Actus Reus

Endangers life

What test is used and which case law did it come from?

Answer 17

R V Sangha

Test itself:

“It is to ask whether an ordinary prudent bystander would, at the time perceive an obvious risk that property would be damaged and life would thereby be endangered” (Objective test)

A general risk will suffice this test (“Obvious Risk”)

There is no requirement that a “particular life would be endangered”

Question 18

6.2 Aggravated Criminal Damage

Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

6.2.1 Actus Reus

Endangers life

An endangerment must occur as a result off?

Answer 18

The destruction of or damage to the property

R V Steer 1998

The defendant was charged with aggravated Criminal damage have fired a gun through the windows and doors of a house.

The charge was not upheld as the endangerment of life did not come from smashing the windows but from firing the gun

Ruling of R V Steer 1998 was confirmed in R V Wenton

“where smashing a window and throwing a petrol bomb was not aggravated criminal damage as the bomb endangered life and not the damage to the windows”

Question 19

6.2 Aggravated Criminal Damage

Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971

6.2.2 Men’s Rea

What is the men’s Rea for S2?

Answer 19

Intention or recklessness as to the destroying or damaging of property and;

Intention or recklessness as to the endangering of life

Whether or not the D was reckless, will be established In the R V G and R test

Question 20

6.3 Criminal Damage by Arson

Answer 20

The destruction or damage to property under either s.1(1) or S.1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 arises through fire,

the defendant will also be liable under s.1(3) of criminal damage by arson

Question 21

6.4 Lawful excuse

What are the defences Established in Section 5 (2) for a lawful excuse?

Answer 21

(i) Section 5(2)(a):

Belief in consent of the owner

(ii) Section 5(2)(b):

Belief that property was an immediate need of protection

Section 5(3)

“These are to be assessed subjectively and the case of Jaggard V Dickinson has established:

Even a drunken incorrect belief will suffice

Question 22

6.5 Charging and Sentencing

Answer 22

Triable either way

Maximum for all three offences is 10 years which raise to life imprisonment in relation to aggravated criminal damage and criminal damage by arson

Question 23

Disclaimer

Answer 23

Please do forgive me if I have made any errors within these Flashcard whether that be grammatical etc.

if my mistakes do turn out to be severe in your learning please inform me as I’ll change it and make it better

Thank you