Criminal Damage Scenarios

Albert kicks a sofa belonging to his friend Charlie after they have an argument and causes a scuff to appear of the sofa.

 Section 1(1) provides;  ‘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.’   Actus Reus;  Destroys or damages, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse.  Mens rea;  Intention to destroy or damage property belonging to another’ or ‘recklessness as to whether such property is destroyed. 

Emma kicks a ball towards the back wall of her grandmother’s house. She misses the wall and breaks a window.

 Mens Rea  Intention to destroy or damage property belonging to another; or  Recklessness as to whether such property is destroyed or damaged.   Note that recklessness is now subjective recklessness. This comes from the case of Gemmell and Richards (2003). The Lords, now the Supreme Court overruled their own decision in the case of Caldwell (1982). The question the courts ask is did the d’ recognise the risk of damaging or destroying property (and of endangering life for the aggravated offence?  Gemmell and Richards (2003) two boys, aged 11 and 13 set fire to some papers at the back of a shop and damaged several buildings. They were convicted of arson on the basis of Caldwell (the damage was obvious to a reasonable person.) On appeal to the Lords, they used the Practice Statement 1966 to overrule their previous decision. They said that the previous law was wrong and the d’ had to understand that there was some sort of risk. 

Tyler paints graffiti on his grandmother’s house using water based paint.

 Actus Reus  Destroys or Damages  Samuels v Stubbs (1972) Walters J said it was difficult to lay down a general rule about what would amount to damage. It would depend on the particular circumstances, type of damage and how badly it was damaged.  Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon Constabulary (1986) members of the CND, nuclear disarmament group, used water soluble paints on the pavement to symbolise vaporised victims of Hiroshima on the 40 th year anniversary. This washed away with rain but their conviction for criminal damage was upheld as the council was put to the expense of cleaning the pavements.  Compare that case with R v A (1978) where the d spat on a policeman’s overcoat but was not guilty of criminal damage as the spit could have easily been wiped away with a damp cloth. It would appear to be criminal damage if someone is put to the expense of repairing or cleaning.  It will not amount to criminal damage if there is no impairment of use as shown in Morphitis v Salmon (1990) where a scratch on some scaffolding was not deemed as criminal damage as it did not prevent its use or affect its value.

Julie has an argument with her brother Max. She decides to get him back by burning some of his things, however, she mistakenly burns her sister Tanya’s things by accident.

 Arson  Section 1(3) provides;  (3) An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.  This again is considered a very serious offence carrying a maximum sentence of life. It is criminal damage but if the damage is caused by fire it is considered arson.  MPC v Caldwell (1982) where the d was convicted of arson when he set fire to a chair in a hotel he worked in. The fire was put out before anyone was injured but he had endangered the lives of the residents.  Elliot v C (1983) a 14 year old girl with very low intelligence was convicted of arson by setting her neighbour’s shed alight. She put white spirit on the floor and set fire to it to stay warm. The old test of objective reasonableness was used and she was judged by the standard of the reasonable person. Would the reasonable person had done the same? Under the more recent test she would not have been convicted.  Denton (1982) d set fire to his employer’s mill and successfully argued that the owner had consented as he wanted to fraudulently claim money through the insurance. The court said that if the damage was caused with the intent to endanger life, then no defence would have been available.

Tony kicks down the front door of his neighbour’s house as his neighbour, who is inside with the £3000 guitar that Tony lent him, is threatening to set fire to the house.

 There is a defence of lawful excuse that can be relied upon. This is not applicable to criminal damage endangering life. Lawful excuse is where the d destroys property in the belief that;  The person entitled to consent would have consented to the destruction or damage if they had known about it and its circumstances s5(2)(a) or  It was necessary in order to protect property belonging to himself or another which he believed was in immediate need of protection and he believed the means adopted was reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances s5(2)(b).   Section 5(2)(a)  Jaggard v Dickenson (1981) d was drunk and broke into a house believing it was a friend’s house. She believed that her friend would have consented to the damage caused. On appeal the court said that she should be acquitted because her drunkenness should not play a factor, her belief was enough.  DPP v Blake (1993) a vicar used a marker pen to write biblical quotations on a wall outside parliament. He argued consent, stating he had God’s consent. He failed as the act mentions nothing about God.   Section 5(2)(b)  DPP v Blake (1993) the vicar also claimed that with his protest he was aiming to protect the property of the people of the Gulf. He failed because the people of the Gulf were too far away to benefit from his actions.  Chamberlin v Lindon (1998) d was allowed the defence when he destroyed a neighbour’s wall because he honestly believed that the wall was blocking his right of access and he adopted a reasonable course of action. 