Property offences Flashcards
(157 cards)
What is the maximum sentence for basic criminal damage?
10 years imprisonment
What are the 5 parts of basic criminal damage?
- Destroy or damage
- Property
- Belonging to another
- Without lawful excuse
- Intention or recklessness as to the damage or destruction of property belonging to another
What is meant by ‘destroy or damage’?
- No statutory definition provided
- Destroy = property ceases to exist following D’s actions
- Damage is a question of fact and degree - guided by circumstsances of each case
To be ‘damaged’, must the damage be permanent or render it useless?
- Need not be permanent - can fix with time, effort and money (e.g. graffiti is damage even though it can be washed away or cleaned)
- Need not be made useless to be damaged
Does ‘damage’ only encompass physical harm?
No - includes permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness (e.g. out of order toilet) as well as temporary or permanent physical damage
What will damage not include?
- Something that can be wiped away without leaving mark or stain (spit on policeman’s raincoat)
For the purposes of basic criminal damage, what does ‘property’ include and not include?
- Includes: real or personal tangible property, money, animals and their carcasses if they been reduced into possession
- Does not include: mushrooms, plant, flowers, or fruit growing wild on any land, or information
When will property belong to another for basic criminal damage?
- Custody or control of it
- Proprietary right or interest (not equitable interest arising from estate contract)
- Having a charge on it
Property can belong to more than one person!
What is the MR for basic criminal damage
Intention (orindary meaning) or recklessness (subj aware of risk, objc unreasonable to take in known circumstances) as to destruction or damage of property belonging to another
What does it mean that the MR extends to the whole of the AR for basic criminal damage?
Must be proved that D knew or was reckless a to whether property belonged to another (i.e. cannot cause basic criminal damage if you do not know property belongs to another)
Insufficient that D only does act that damages property intentionally
E.g. Smith - smashed wall panels and floorboards to gain access to wiring he had fitted in rented accomodation - conviction for basic criminal damage quashed - no offence committed if person destroys or damages property belonging to another if he does so in honest though mistaken belief that property is his own - provided belief honestly held it is irrelevant to consider whether or not belief is justifiable
If you destroy/damage property with the honest belief it is your own, will the justifiability of this belief be considered?
No, provided it is honestly held
What is arson, and to what degree does damage have to be to qualify as it?
Criminal damage by fire, however slight
How does the AR and MR differ for basic arson than basic criminal damage?
- AR the same but destroy or damage by fire
- MR the same but by fire
Can consider them in parallel from here - same for aggravated
When will a D not commit criminal damage?
If they have a lawful excuse
What are the two things a lawful excuse might be?
- Any general defence (self-defence, duress)
- Lawful excuse defences - where relevant apply to basic criminal damage/arson
Will lawful excuses apply to aggravated damage?
No
What are the 2 lawful excuse defences?
- Where D believes owner would have consented to damage
- Where D acts to protect their or another’s property
Does the D’s belief that the owner would have consented to the damage need to be reasonable?
No - only honestly held, does not need to be justified (subjective)
Even if it results from intoxication! I.e. a drunken belief
Will a D’s motive be taken into account?
No - provided D honestly believes that owner of property has/would have consented to damage
Even where motive is to perpetuate a fraud
E.g. Denton - owner of failing factory said to D a fire would improve financial circumstances of business - D took instruction to set fire to factory - conviction quashed and was entitled to defence
What are the limits to the lawful excuse of believed consent?
However strong a belief might be, consent cannot be given by God
Will the lawful excuse of protecting property apply to people, also?
E.g. mother kicks down door to save child from perceived threat from husband
No - defence only operates for protection of property - a child does not constitute property but a pet might!
What are the 4 requirements of the lawful excuse of acting to protect property?
- D must act to protect property
- D must believe property was in immediate need of protectoin (subjective)
- D must believe that means of protection adopted are reasonable (subjective)
- Damage caused by D must be capable of protecting the property (objective)
E.g. squatter fits locks in house and damages door in doing so - raises defence there had been high number of thefts in areas - conviction of criminal damage upheld as property not in immediate need of protection
What is meant by the requirement that the damage caused by D must be capable of protecting the property?
Not sufficient that accused intended to prevent further damage, the act must be objectively capable of protecting the property from damage
Hunt - started fire in bedroom to demonstrate inadequacy of fire alarm in block of flats - fire alarm did not work so alled fire brigade
When will damage be too remote to protect property?
Hill and Hall - cut wire fence of nuclear submarine base to reduce nuclear strike and protect her property