Criminal: Simple Criminal Damage, Arson and Lawful Excuse

Question 1

What does the Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 1(1) define as an offence?

Answer 1

A person who without lawful excuse damages or destroys 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.

The maximum sentence is ten years’ imprisonment.

Question 2

List the five parts of the basic criminal damage offence.

Answer 2

• Destroy or damage
• Property
• Belonging to another
• Without lawful excuse
• Intention or recklessness as to the damage or destruction of property belonging to another

Question 3

What does ‘destroy’ mean in the context of criminal damage?

Answer 3

It means that following D’s actions, the property ceases to exist.

Question 4

What is the significance of the case Samuels v Stubbs [1972]?

Answer 4

It established that the definition of damage must be guided by the circumstances of each case, and damage does not require the property to be rendered useless.

Question 5

In Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon [1986], why was painting silhouettes considered damage?

Answer 5

The court held it was damage because time, effort, and money were spent in restoring the pavement to its original state.

Question 6

What was ruled in Roe v Kingerlee [1986] regarding mud on a police cell wall?

Answer 6

Spreading mud on the walls of a police cell constituted damage as it incurred a cost to remove.

Question 7

What did A (a juvenile) v R [1978] conclude about spitting on a policeman’s raincoat?

Answer 7

Spitting on the raincoat was not considered criminal damage as it could be wiped away without leaving a mark.

Question 8

According to Morphitis v Salmon [1990], what does criminal damage include?

Answer 8

It includes not only permanent or temporary physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness.

Question 9

What does the CDA 1971, section 10(1) define as ‘property’?

Answer 9

Property means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money and certain wild creatures.

Question 10

What type of property does R v Whitely (1991) clarify is not considered ‘property’ under the CDA?

Answer 10

Information does not fall within the definition of ‘property’.

Question 11

According to CDA 1971, section 10(2), who can property belong to?

Answer 11

• Having custody or control of it
• Having a proprietary right or interest
• Having a charge on it

Question 12

What is the mens rea for basic criminal damage?

Answer 12

Intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another.

Question 13

What must the prosecution prove for reckless criminal damage according to R v G [2003]?

Answer 13

• The accused was subjectively aware of a risk
• It was objectively unreasonable for the accused to take that risk

Question 14

What was the ruling in R v Smith [1974] regarding mistaken belief of ownership?

Answer 14

No offence is committed if a person destroys or damages property belonging to another under an honest but mistaken belief that it is their own.

Question 15

How is basic arson defined in relation to criminal damage?

Answer 15

Arson is criminal damage by fire, however slight.

Question 16

What are the actus reus components of basic arson?

Answer 16

• Destroy or damage by fire
• Property
• Belonging to another
• Without lawful excuse

Question 17

What is the mens rea for basic arson?

Answer 17

Intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another by fire.

Question 18

Summarize the elements of basic criminal damage and basic arson.

Answer 18

• Actus reus: Destroy or damage (by fire), Property (s 10(1)), Belonging to another (s 10(2)), Without lawful excuse
• Mens rea: Intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another (by fire).

Question 19

What is necessary to establish whether property is damaged?

Answer 19

It is a question of fact and degree, guided by the circumstances of each case.

Question 20

What is the basic offence of criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer 20

Destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse

The actus reus includes destruction or damage by fire and the mens rea involves intention or recklessness.

Question 21

What sections of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 relate to lawful excuse defences?

Answer 21

Section 5(2) and Section 5(5)

Section 5(5) preserves the availability of general defences to criminal offences.

Question 22

What are the two types of lawful excuse defences under section 5(2) CDA 1971?

Answer 22

• Section 5(2)(a): Belief that the owner would have consented
• Section 5(2)(b): Acting to protect property

These defences apply to basic criminal damage or basic arson.

Question 23

What does section 5(2)(a) of the CDA 1971 state?

Answer 23

A person believes that the owner would have consented to the damage

The belief need not be reasonable, just honestly held.

Question 24

In Jaggard v Dickinson, what was the key outcome regarding mistaken belief due to intoxication?

Answer 24

The court held that the defendant was entitled to the defence regardless of whether the belief was reasonable

The test was subjective based on the defendant’s honest belief.

Question 25

Is the defendant's motive relevant under section 5(2)(a) of the CDA 1971?

Answer 25

No, the motive is irrelevant even if it is to perpetrate fraud ## Footnote Reference case: R v Denton.

Question 26

What must a defendant demonstrate to successfully argue the defence under section 5(2)(b) of the CDA 1971?

Answer 26

* Act to protect property * Believe the property is in immediate need of protection * Believe the means of protection are reasonable * Damage must be objectively capable of protecting the property ## Footnote Reference cases: R v Baker & Wilkins, R v Hunt.

Question 27

What was the ruling in Johnson v DPP regarding immediate need of protection?

Answer 27

The court upheld the conviction as the defendant did not believe his property was in immediate need of protection ## Footnote The case involved a squatter damaging a door to fit locks.

Question 28

What is the significance of the ruling in R v Hunt regarding the objective capability of protection?

Answer 28

The act must be objectively capable of protecting the property from damage ## Footnote This introduced an objective element to the defence against the subjective belief required.

Question 29

What was the outcome of Blake v DPP concerning the belief of consent from God?

Answer 29

The court dismissed the appeal, stating that believing God gave consent is not a lawful excuse under domestic law ## Footnote The defendant attempted to use religious justification for criminal damage.

Question 30

What must be proven for the defence under section 5(2)(b) regarding the means of protection?

Answer 30

The defendant must believe the means of protection adopted are reasonable ## Footnote This is assessed subjectively, based on the defendant's honest belief.

Question 31

Fill in the blank: A defendant will not commit criminal damage if they have a _______.

Answer 31

lawful excuse ## Footnote Lawful excuses can include general defences like self-defence.

Question 32

True or False: The belief in God’s consent can serve as a lawful excuse for criminal damage.

Answer 32

False ## Footnote This was established in Blake v DPP.

Question 33

What is required for a defendant to act under section 5(2)(b) when protecting property?

Answer 33

The property must be in immediate need of protection ## Footnote This is assessed through the subjective belief of the defendant.