Criminal Damage
Criminal Damage Act 1971
Criminal Damage:
Definition – s 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 – a person who without lawful excuse destroys
or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage the property
or being reckless as to whether the property is destroyed or damaged
Actus Reus:
Destroys or damages – what constitutes criminal damage is a matter of fact and degree and
it is for the jury to apply their common sense in deciding whether it was damage or not –
Roe v Kingerlee
Morphitis v Salmon – damage should be widely interpreted so as to include not only
permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of
value or usefulness
R v Whiteley – any alteration to the physical nature of the property may amount to damage
however, whether it is damage or not will depend on the effect that the alteration had to
the owner
Property – s 10(1) CDA 1971 – property means of a tangible nature (can physically touch it),
whether real (land) or personal, including money
S 10(1)(a) – includes wild creatures which have been tamed or are ordinarily kept in
captivity, wild creatures that have been reduced into possession or are in the course of
being reduced into possession
S 10(1)(b) – does not include mushrooms growing wild or flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant
growing wild (mushroom includes fungus and plant includes any shrub or tree)
Belonging to another – s 10(2) CDA 1971 – belonging to any person (s 10(2)(a)) having
custody or control of it, (s 10(2)(b)) having a proprietary right or interest in it or (s 10(2)(c))
having a charge on it
Mens Rea:
Intent –
, No offence is committed if a person intentionally destroys or damages property which they
honestly, yet mistakenly, believe to be their own property – R v Smith
Recklessness –
R v Stephenson and R v G – confirm that the test for recklessness is subjective (apply
Cunningham)
Without lawful excuse:
2 defences –
S 5(2)(a) CDA 1971 – D honestly believed he had consent to destroy or damage the property
from a person entitled to give consent
R v Denton and R v B – the belief must be honest not necessarily a reasonable belief
Jaggard v Dickinson – the belief in consent can be a drunken belief (as long as it is still an
honest belief)
Blake v DPP – the person entitled to give consent must be a living person
S 5(2)(b) – D destroys or damages property in order to protect other property which D
honestly believed was in immediate need of protection
R v Hunt – it is left to the jury to decide if the damage or destruction of property was done
to actually protect other property, an objective test
R v Hill & Hall – confirms that it is an objective test and there must be evidence that the
other property needed protection from immediate danger (emphasis of immediate danger)
R v Baker & Wilkins – does not apply to cases where D damages property in order to protect
a person
Arson:
Definition – s 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971 – an offence committed under this section by
destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson
Aggravated Criminal Damage:
Definition – s 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 – a person who without lawful excuse destroys
or damages any property whether belonging to himself or another, intending to (or being
reckless as to whether) destroy or damage any property and intending by the destruction or
damage of property (or being reckless as to whether) to endanger the life of another
Criminal Damage Act 1971
Criminal Damage:
Definition – s 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 – a person who without lawful excuse destroys
or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage the property
or being reckless as to whether the property is destroyed or damaged
Actus Reus:
Destroys or damages – what constitutes criminal damage is a matter of fact and degree and
it is for the jury to apply their common sense in deciding whether it was damage or not –
Roe v Kingerlee
Morphitis v Salmon – damage should be widely interpreted so as to include not only
permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of
value or usefulness
R v Whiteley – any alteration to the physical nature of the property may amount to damage
however, whether it is damage or not will depend on the effect that the alteration had to
the owner
Property – s 10(1) CDA 1971 – property means of a tangible nature (can physically touch it),
whether real (land) or personal, including money
S 10(1)(a) – includes wild creatures which have been tamed or are ordinarily kept in
captivity, wild creatures that have been reduced into possession or are in the course of
being reduced into possession
S 10(1)(b) – does not include mushrooms growing wild or flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant
growing wild (mushroom includes fungus and plant includes any shrub or tree)
Belonging to another – s 10(2) CDA 1971 – belonging to any person (s 10(2)(a)) having
custody or control of it, (s 10(2)(b)) having a proprietary right or interest in it or (s 10(2)(c))
having a charge on it
Mens Rea:
Intent –
, No offence is committed if a person intentionally destroys or damages property which they
honestly, yet mistakenly, believe to be their own property – R v Smith
Recklessness –
R v Stephenson and R v G – confirm that the test for recklessness is subjective (apply
Cunningham)
Without lawful excuse:
2 defences –
S 5(2)(a) CDA 1971 – D honestly believed he had consent to destroy or damage the property
from a person entitled to give consent
R v Denton and R v B – the belief must be honest not necessarily a reasonable belief
Jaggard v Dickinson – the belief in consent can be a drunken belief (as long as it is still an
honest belief)
Blake v DPP – the person entitled to give consent must be a living person
S 5(2)(b) – D destroys or damages property in order to protect other property which D
honestly believed was in immediate need of protection
R v Hunt – it is left to the jury to decide if the damage or destruction of property was done
to actually protect other property, an objective test
R v Hill & Hall – confirms that it is an objective test and there must be evidence that the
other property needed protection from immediate danger (emphasis of immediate danger)
R v Baker & Wilkins – does not apply to cases where D damages property in order to protect
a person
Arson:
Definition – s 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971 – an offence committed under this section by
destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson
Aggravated Criminal Damage:
Definition – s 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 – a person who without lawful excuse destroys
or damages any property whether belonging to himself or another, intending to (or being
reckless as to whether) destroy or damage any property and intending by the destruction or
damage of property (or being reckless as to whether) to endanger the life of another
