Mrs Howe Criminal Damage Criminal Law A2

Mrs Howe Criminal Damage Act 1971 Four Offences:- Four Offences:- Basic offence of criminal damage Basic offence of criminal damage Aggravated criminal damage Aggravated criminal damage Arson Arson Aggravated arson Aggravated arson

Mrs Howe Basic Offence Write out the definition of criminal damage. S1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act Pg 155. Actus Reus:- Destroy or damage Destroy or damage Property Property Belonging to another Belonging to another Mens Rea:- Specific intention to destroy or damage the property or Specific intention to destroy or damage the property or Recklessness as to whether the property is destroyed or damaged Recklessness as to whether the property is destroyed or damaged

Mrs Howe Destroy or Damage No definition in new act. No definition in new act. Same phrase used in law prior to 1971 act- precedent Same phrase used in law prior to 1971 act- precedent Damage should be interpreted widely Damage should be interpreted widely Slight damage is enough- Gayford V Chouler- grass Slight damage is enough- Gayford V Chouler- grass Destroy much stronger, includes where property made useless but not completely destroyed Destroy much stronger, includes where property made useless but not completely destroyed Does not have to be permanent- Roe V Kingerlee 1986 Does not have to be permanent- Roe V Kingerlee 1986 If it costs time, money and or effort to remove the damage- then criminal damage has occurred Hardman V Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary 1986, Blake V DPP, Flak If it costs time, money and or effort to remove the damage- then criminal damage has occurred Hardman V Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary 1986, Blake V DPP, Flak If no costs or effort in clearing up and can still be used no criminal damage. A (A) Juvenile V R 1978 –spit If no costs or effort in clearing up and can still be used no criminal damage. A (A) Juvenile V R 1978 –spit Type and purpose of property will be taken into account. Morphitis v Salmon 1990-scaffolding pole Type and purpose of property will be taken into account. Morphitis v Salmon 1990-scaffolding pole

Mrs Howe Activity Do activity on pg 157 of book Do activity on pg 157 of book

Mrs Howe Task Create a Table of Cases to explain Criminal Damage- Actus Reus Create a Table of Cases to explain Criminal Damage- Actus Reus

Mrs Howe Property Is defined in S 10 (1) CD Act 1971 Is defined in S 10 (1) CD Act 1971 Property of a tangible nature whether real or personal Property of a tangible nature whether real or personal Includes animals, wild or domestic Includes animals, wild or domestic Not mushrooms, fruit, flowers, foliage of a plant growing wild. Not mushrooms, fruit, flowers, foliage of a plant growing wild.

Mrs Howe Belonging to Another Set out in 10 (2) CDA 1971 Set out in 10 (2) CDA 1971 Property is treated as belonging to any person Property is treated as belonging to any person having the custody or control of it or having the custody or control of it or Having in it any propriety right or interest or Having in it any propriety right or interest or having a charge on it. having a charge on it. For basic Criminal Damage property must belong to someone else. Not necessary for other offences. For basic Criminal Damage property must belong to someone else. Not necessary for other offences.

Mrs Howe Mens Rea Must do damage either:- Must do damage either:- Intentionally or Intentionally or Recklessly Recklessly Subjective recklessness- Maliciously and Unlawful

Mrs Howe Intention Must proof D intended to :- Must proof D intended to :- destroy or damage property destroy or damage property belonging to another. belonging to another. Proving an act not enough- Pembilton 1874 Proving an act not enough- Pembilton 1874 Believing property is yours – means no intention to damage property belonging to another - Smith 1974 Believing property is yours – means no intention to damage property belonging to another - Smith 1974

Mrs Howe Recklessness Initially courts used subjective recklessness test. Stephenson- Tramp Haystack Initially courts used subjective recklessness test. Stephenson- Tramp Haystack However in Metropolitan Police Commissioner V Caldwell 1981 H of L However in Metropolitan Police Commissioner V Caldwell 1981 H of L Ruled that a person is reckless were they do an act which in fact created an obvious risk and had Ruled that a person is reckless were they do an act which in fact created an obvious risk and had a not given any thought to consequence or (objective) a not given any thought to consequence or (objective) b gave thought but carried on (subjective) b gave thought but carried on (subjective) Objective test hard on some D- Elliott v C Objective test hard on some D- Elliott v C

Mrs Howe Task Create a Table of Cases to explain Mens Rea Required for criminal damage Create a Table of Cases to explain Mens Rea Required for criminal damage

Mrs Howe Without Lawful Excuse Two Lawful excuses D must honestly believe one of these The owner would have consented to the damage or Other property was at risk and in need of immediate protection and what he did was reasonable in all the circumstances. Belief in consent- Denton-Mill owner-fire Defence of mistake allowed even were intoxicated Jaggard V Dickinson 1980 Belief property needs protection Greenpeace- GM crops Hunt 1978 (fire-home)

Mrs Howe Task Create a Table of Cases to explain each of the following Create a Table of Cases to explain each of the following Criminal Damage- Actus Reus Criminal Damage- Actus Reus Mens Rea Mens Rea Defences Defences Separate tables for each point of law Separate tables for each point of law

Mrs Howe Activity Read activity on page 164 of the Jackie Martin book Read activity on page 164 of the Jackie Martin book and Answer questions in your book and Answer questions in your book

Mrs Howe Problems With The Law Read Pg and identify what are the key problems with this area of law. Read Pg and identify what are the key problems with this area of law.

Mrs Howe Summary

Exam Question Critically consider what difficulties the courts have encountered in interpreting the offence of criminal damage Critically consider what difficulties the courts have encountered in interpreting the offence of criminal damage OCR Jan 2003 OCR Jan 2003