Criminal Damage:
S.1(1) simple criminal damage : intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging
property belonging to another without lawful excuse.
AR: destroy/damage property belonging to another
MR: intent/recklessness to destroying property belonging to another.
AR:
‘Damage’ is a question of fact and degree (Roe v Kingerlee)
Roe v Kingerlee: mud on cell walls was criminal damage.
Hardman v CC of Avon and Somerset: D painted protest signs on the pavement in paint that would
wash off in the rain. Even though it was temporary it was criminal damage because the council
spent time removing it. Damage or destroy therefore means that it would incur cost to repair.
Property: s.10(1) anything that is tangible (e.g. money, property, etc)
Make it CLEAR ie Carol has destroyed/damaged property because we are told she breaks a window,
the property is the window and it is property belonging to another because it is a hotel which does
not belong to Carol.
MR:
Intention aim/purpose/desire (Moloney) or recklessness (Cunningham) as to destroying or
damaging such property.
R v Smith: D must know that the property belongs to another or realise that it might; must intend
to destroy or damage it or realise that their actions might result in damage/destruction.
Remember if intent is not recognised then do indirect intent (Nedrick, Woolin) virtually certain.
o Consequences were virtually certain: an objective test.
o Did D foresee that consequences were VC: subjective.
Then do recklessness. Two stage test. For SIMPLE it is r v g.
o The test for recklessness is subjective:
o D foresees a risk and goes on to take it and the risk is unjustified.
o We are not told what D foresaw. Facts that D did foresee a risk are:
S.1(2) aggravated criminal damage : intentionally or recklessly destroying or
damaging property belonging to himself or another and by the damage or destruction intending, or being
reckless as to, endangering the life of another.
AR: destroy/damage property belonging to D or another
MR: intent/recklessness to destroying property; intention/recklessness to endangering the life of
another.
AR:
Destroying/damaging and property as above: belonging to D or another, within this offence D can
commit it with D’s own property.
MR
No life need actually be endangered (Dudley): D must simply intend to put someone’s life in danger or
be reckless as to causing danger to someone’s life.
A v G recklessness.
The danger must arise from the damage caused: not the cause of the damage.
o R v Steer – fired shots through a window, not aggravated criminal damage because the danger
came from the bullets, not from the broken window: the intention/recklessness to endanger life
must, for instance, be by the damaged glass rather than the bullet that damaged the glass. Ie
must be by the danger caused: not the object by which the damage was caused.
o R v Dudley: D threw a firebomb, knowing people were inside. This was aggravated.
o Any danger from a burning fire will be aggravated because the risk to life arises from
conflagration itself and not the original match used to start the fire. (Steer, obiter)
Arson (ss.1(1) & (3)) & Aggravated Arson (ss.1(2) & (3)):
MR elements as above. Additional requirement of AR that the damage be caused by fire i.e. AR:
destroy/damage property belonging to another by fire.
S.1(1) simple criminal damage : intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging
property belonging to another without lawful excuse.
AR: destroy/damage property belonging to another
MR: intent/recklessness to destroying property belonging to another.
AR:
‘Damage’ is a question of fact and degree (Roe v Kingerlee)
Roe v Kingerlee: mud on cell walls was criminal damage.
Hardman v CC of Avon and Somerset: D painted protest signs on the pavement in paint that would
wash off in the rain. Even though it was temporary it was criminal damage because the council
spent time removing it. Damage or destroy therefore means that it would incur cost to repair.
Property: s.10(1) anything that is tangible (e.g. money, property, etc)
Make it CLEAR ie Carol has destroyed/damaged property because we are told she breaks a window,
the property is the window and it is property belonging to another because it is a hotel which does
not belong to Carol.
MR:
Intention aim/purpose/desire (Moloney) or recklessness (Cunningham) as to destroying or
damaging such property.
R v Smith: D must know that the property belongs to another or realise that it might; must intend
to destroy or damage it or realise that their actions might result in damage/destruction.
Remember if intent is not recognised then do indirect intent (Nedrick, Woolin) virtually certain.
o Consequences were virtually certain: an objective test.
o Did D foresee that consequences were VC: subjective.
Then do recklessness. Two stage test. For SIMPLE it is r v g.
o The test for recklessness is subjective:
o D foresees a risk and goes on to take it and the risk is unjustified.
o We are not told what D foresaw. Facts that D did foresee a risk are:
S.1(2) aggravated criminal damage : intentionally or recklessly destroying or
damaging property belonging to himself or another and by the damage or destruction intending, or being
reckless as to, endangering the life of another.
AR: destroy/damage property belonging to D or another
MR: intent/recklessness to destroying property; intention/recklessness to endangering the life of
another.
AR:
Destroying/damaging and property as above: belonging to D or another, within this offence D can
commit it with D’s own property.
MR
No life need actually be endangered (Dudley): D must simply intend to put someone’s life in danger or
be reckless as to causing danger to someone’s life.
A v G recklessness.
The danger must arise from the damage caused: not the cause of the damage.
o R v Steer – fired shots through a window, not aggravated criminal damage because the danger
came from the bullets, not from the broken window: the intention/recklessness to endanger life
must, for instance, be by the damaged glass rather than the bullet that damaged the glass. Ie
must be by the danger caused: not the object by which the damage was caused.
o R v Dudley: D threw a firebomb, knowing people were inside. This was aggravated.
o Any danger from a burning fire will be aggravated because the risk to life arises from
conflagration itself and not the original match used to start the fire. (Steer, obiter)
Arson (ss.1(1) & (3)) & Aggravated Arson (ss.1(2) & (3)):
MR elements as above. Additional requirement of AR that the damage be caused by fire i.e. AR:
destroy/damage property belonging to another by fire.
