criminal damage - property offences Flashcards
S1 criminal damage act 1971
“A person, who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”
AR
• Committed when the D damages property which belongs to another
damages
Undefined, but its usual meaning is used
Damage requires property to be unusable or involves some physical interference which reduces value or costs money to repair
undermining usability
This hasn’t been something that the courts have been able to define succinctly
Drake v DPP [1994] it was held that clamping a car was not undermining usability as the integrity of the car remained
In Fiak [2005] where D stuffed and flooded the toilet in his prison cell, did equal damage due to the fact the blankets and cell were (temporarily) unusable
reduction in value
Used to be more commonly used, especially in areas such as cars – eg, scratching or damaging a cars paint or bodywork would reduce the value
This has not been used as much to define damages in recent years
cost of repair
Seemingly replaced reduction in value but an issue has appeared with what type of repair is possible
In A (Juvenile) [1978] spitting on a policeman’s jacket did not constitute damage as it could be wiped off
In Samuels v Stubbs [1972] the D jumped on a policeman’s hat, which could have been restored - damage was found
property
Remains similar to the property defined in Theft, with three key differences:
1) Land cannot normally be a subject of theft but can be criminally damaged
2) Intangible property (bank account, credit etc) can be stolen but cannot be damaged
3) Wild plants can be theft if done with commercial intent, but cannot be criminally damaged
belonging to another
It is not an offence to damage your own property
Belonging = having custody or control, a property right or interest in or having a charge on it
If it shared, D can still be charged with damaging it
MR
There are two elements to MR
That the D intended or was reckless as to causing damage and
D must have intended or known or been reckless to the fact that the property belonged to another
Smith 1974
At the end of his tenancy, D removed some wiring he had installed which caused £130 worth of damage
Under civil law, following installation – the wiring belonged to the landlord which D was unaware of and believed it belonged to him
Charged with CD, allowed appeal as he did not satisfy MR as he did not know, nor foresee that the wiring did not belong to him
arson
Defined under S1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971
All elements of CD must be satisfied as well as establishing that the damage was caused by fire and that D intended or was reckless to causing the damage by fire
