Summary Criminal Damage - GDL Distinction Style Notes

PROPERTY OFFENCES



BASIC CRIMINAL DAMAGE

S1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971- ‘a person who, without lawful excuse, damages or
destroys any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage such property,
or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be
guilty of an offence’.



ACTUS REUS

Samuels v Stubbs: damage is a matter of fact and degree –
1. DAMAGE / depends on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the
DESTROY article, and the mode by which it was affected.

A (a juvenile) v R: A spat at a policeman- made a mark on his
coat- prosecution argued it needed dry cleaning- concluded the
stain could just be wiped- no damage.
-No expense in returning item to original condition = probably no
damage.

Hardman v Chief Constable Avon and Somerset: D’s painted
silhouettes on a pavement- argued the rain would wipe away the
paint.
-Held: not necessary for damage to be permanent- expense
and inconvenience caused is relevant.

Roe v Kingerlee: D smeared mud on the walls of a police cell-
cost to remove = £7 – if expense required, then it could be
damage.

Morphitas v Salmon: D faced with a barrier blocking a road-
scratched part of the barrier whilst moving it- no damage- no
impairment to its value or usefulness- scratching = general
wear and tare.
-Justice Auld: ‘criminal damage includes not only permanent or
temporary harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment
of value or usefulness’.

R v Fiak: stuffed a blanket down toilet in his cell- cell flooded- no
lasting damage, but counted as damage because cell and blanket
temporarily unusable – temporary uselessness can count as
damage.

, Note: look for 
-Expense required to remedy damage;
-Impairment of value;
-Impairment of usefulness.

S10(1) CDA – states what constitutes property- ‘property means
2. PROPERTY property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal’.
(a)- can include wild creatures that have been tamed / kept in
captivity.

R v Whitely: the act requires damage to tangible property-
information is not property.

Section 10(2) CDA- property shall be treated as belonging to any
3. BELONGING TO person-
ANOTHER (a) having the custody or control of it;
(b) having in it any proprietary right or interest;
(c) having a charge on it- e.g. if the property in question is
mortgaged, it will also belong to the bank / mortgage company.

R v Appleyard: D (managing director of a company) set fire to
business premises- held the property belonged to another, he did
not actually own the premises.

Note: property can belong to more than one person- it may belong
to D, but it can also belong to another.


MENS REA

Note: do not look at oblique intent – recklessness is an option.
1. INTENT, OR
RECKLESSNESS, AS Intent: at the time when D carried out the actus reus- was it his
TO DESTROYING OR aim or purpose to destroy or damage the property belonging to
DAMAGING another- R v Maloney.
PROPERTY
Recklessness (R v G): a person acts recklessly within the
meaning of S1 CDA with respect to:
(i) A circumstance when he is aware of a risk that exists, or will
exist;
(ii) A result when he is aware of a risk that will occur (subjective);
And in the circumstances known to him, it is unreasonable to
take that risk (subjectively- but risk will have been objectively
unreasonable).
-Someone who drives a car takes a risk as to damaging property-
that is a reasonable risk to take.
-Circumstance  property belongs to another;
-Result  property will be damaged / destroyed as a result of
what D does.