Criminal Damage

1
Criminal Damage
2
Lesson Objectives

• I will be able to state the definitions of the 3
  types of criminal damage
• I will be able to explain the actus reus and mens
  rea of the 3 types of criminal damage
• I will be able to explain cases that illustrate
  the law on the 3 types of criminal damage

3
Criminal Damage

• Criminal damage consists of 3 separate offences
  that cover a range of activities from minor
  vandalism to arson
• All offences are dealt with in the Criminal
  Damage Act 1971
• They are basic criminal damage, aggravated
  criminal damage (correctly called destroying or
  damaging property with intent to endanger life)
  and arson

4
The basic offence of criminal damage

• Set out in s1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
  as
• 1. A person who without lawful excuse destroys or
  damages any property belonging to another
  intending to destroy or damage any such property
  would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of
  an offence

5

• The actus reus of the offence has the following
  elements
• Destroy or damage
• Property
• Belonging to another
• Without lawful excuse
• The mens rea of the offence is either
• Intention to destroy or damage property belonging
  to another
• Or
• Recklessness as to whether such property is
  destroyed

6
Actus reus destroy or damage

• Destruction or damage is a question of fact and
  degree including temporary or permanent physical
  harm to property, reduction in value or
  usefulness
• Damage is not defined by the Act. The courts have
  construed the term liberally
• What constitutes damage is a matter of fact and
  degree and it is for the court, using its common
  sense, to decide whether what occurred is damage
• It is also the case that the damage need not be
  visible or tangible if it affects the value or
  performance of the property

7

• Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset
  (1986) the meaning of damage within the
  Criminal Damage Act 1971 includes temporary
  damage that will naturally disappear in this
  case it involved water-soluble paint on a
  pavement
• Morphitis v Salmon (1990) this case decided
  that there must be some reduction in usefulness
  or value of an item to amount to criminal damage
  a scratch to a scaffold pole was, therefore,
  insufficient
• Be careful with computer related damage
• Destruction of property includes removing parts
  from a car, killing an animal or killing plants
  or crops

8
Actus reus - property

• Section 10(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
  defines property as
• 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 possession
  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
• For the purposes of this subsection mushroom
  includes any fungus and plant includes any
  shrub or tree
• this is therefore wider than the Theft Act 1968
  s4 definition as it includes land itself, but
  excludes wild plants.

9
Actus reus belonging to another

• This is much the same as in the Theft Act 1968 s5
  and is set out in s10 of the Criminal Damage Act
  1971.
• The main difference is that criminal damage
  requires custody and control of property rather
  than possession or control.
• The effect is that there can be an offence of
  criminal damage whenever some person has any
  rights over property, but it is not possible to
  cause criminal damage to abandoned property

10
Actus reus without lawful excuse

• This is set out in s5 of the Criminal Damage Act
  1971. Section 5(2) defines lawful excuse where
  there is belief in consent or belief in the
  immediate necessity to protect property
• Section 5(3) makes it clear that the belief is
  subjective and must be honestly held

11

• Jaggard v Dickinson (1980) the defence to a
  charge of criminal damage of lawful excuse is
  effective if the defendant honestly believes that
  he has consent of the owner to carry out the
  damage in this case, it was destroying property
  to get into a house
• Denton (1982) here the defendant's employer
  asked him to set fire to his business premises as
  part of an insurance fraud this raised the
  defence of lawful excuse because he was asked to
  do it and the fact that the outcome was intended
  by the person making the request to be unlawful
  is irrelevant

12

• With respect to protection of property, this
  covers events such as emergency services damaging
  property to get in a fight a fire
• The problem here is not the defendants belief in
  the means used were reasonable, but the immediacy
  of the necessity which is objective
• Lloyd v DPP (1985)
• Hill and Hall (1989)

13
Mens rea

• This is straightforward either intention to
  destroy or damage property belonging to another
  or recklessness as to whether such property is
  destroyed.
• In both cases, the recklessness is Cunningham
  (1957) subjective recklessness

14
The aggravated offenceof criminal damage

• This offence is set out in s1(2) of the Criminal
  Damage Act 1971 as
• 2. 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

15

• The key aspects of this more serious offence are
  the intention or recklessness as to endanger
  life. It should also be noted that a person can
  be guilty if he destroys or damages his own
  property with intent to endanger life
• There is no need to prove that a life was in fact
  endangered
• The mens rea is not just the intention to damage
  or destroy property or be reckless thereto, the
  defendant must also be shown to have intended or
  been reckless thereto by that damage

16

• Steer (1987) the aggravated criminal damage
  offence must arise from the damage caused rather
  than the cause of the damage
• However, a defendant may be guilty, either if he
  intended to endanger life by the damage, which
  was intended to be done, or was reckless that
  life would be endangered by the damage
• Warwick (1995) the aggravated criminal damage
  offence requires that the defendants act was
  done with the intention or recklessness as to
  endanger life by the damage done
• The defence of lawful excuse does not apply to
  the aggravated offence

17
Arson

• This offence is set out in s1(2) of the Criminal
  Damage Act 1971 as
• 3. An offence committed under this section by
  destroying or damaging property by fire shall be
  charged as arson
• This offence is the same as the basic offence but
  requires that the damage is caused by fire. As
  this offence is related to the basic offence, the
  lawful excuse offence is available Denton (1982)

18
Exam Q