1. Criminal Damage
Criminal Damage Act 1971:
- s1(1) CDA: simple criminal damage: 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 is guilty of an offence.
- AR: damage of destruction, of property, belonging to another
- Destroy or damage: some examples are obvious. There is no need for extensive
damage
o Hardman v Chief Constable: expense can be trivial (drawings on pavement
made by using soluble chalks amounted to damage).
o Roe v Kingerlee: court said that damage is a matter of fact and to be
determined in common sense way.
o Usually, if expense is occurred in restoring the property to its previous
condition, damage is likely to be established.
- Property:
o s10(1) CDA 1971:
definition is wide and covers property of tangible nature, real or
personal, including money (+ property referred in s10(1)(a) and (b)).
Domesticated animals + carcasses if turned into property and certain
plants growing in garden.
- Belonging to another:
o Generally criminal law will not interfere with you damaging your own
property
o s10(2) CDA 1971:
property belonging to any person having custody or control of it,
having in it proprietary rights or interest, having a charge on it.
Examples: if I rent my house then the house belongs to landlord; if I
co-own my house; if house is mortgaged, lending institution has an
interest in it, so it belongs to them.
- MR: D must intend to damage or destroy the property or be reckless as to such
damage/destruction AND know that the property belongs to another or be reckless as
to whether the property belongs to another.
o Recklessness: subjective test set out in Cunningham and R v G)
o D will lack mens rea if he is sure that the property belongs to him.
R v Smith: if a person honestly believes property is his will lack mens
rea; it doesn’t matter whether the belief was reasonably held as long as
it was honest.
- Offence is committed when property is damaged or destroyed without lawful excuse.
o s5 CDA: lawful excuses:
s5(2)(a): a person will have lawful excuse if he argues either: he
believed he had consent of the owner; he believed he had consent of
the person he thought (wrongly) was the owner; he believed he would
have had consent of the owner; or he believed he would have had
consent of the person he (wrongly) thought was the owner.
1
, s5(2)(b): D believed property was in an immediate need for protection
AND he believed that the means of protection adopted (which led to
criminal damage) were reasonable given the circumstances.
s5(3): D’s belief doesn’t have to be reasonable as long as it is honestly
held.
- S1(2) CDA 1971: aggravated criminal damage: a person who without lawful excuse
damages or destroys property, belonging to himself or another, intending to destroy
or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be
destroyed or damaged; and intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the
life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would thereby be
endangered shall be guilty of an offence.
- AR:
o Destroy or damage property (any: even the defendant’s himself)
- MR:
o intending to destroy or damage any property, or being reckless as to whether
any property would be destroyed.
o Intending by destruction or damage to endanger life of another or being
reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered (“ulterior”
mens rea).
o NB: D can be found guilty of aggravated criminal damage notwithstanding the
fact that no-one’s life was actually put in danger: sufficient to intend danger to
life or being reckless as to whether life would be endangered.
R v Dudley: if at the time of damage/destruction D intended to
endanger life or was reckless to that risk, guilty notwithstanding the
fact that no-one’s life was put in danger.
o NB no 2: question to ask for a conviction for aggr. criminal damage is whether
the defendant, with the damage of destruction of the property, intended to
threaten someone life or was reckless as to the risk. (E.g. if it is a shooting that
endangers life, and not the damage of property, not liable for aggr. criminal
damage).
R v Steer: confirmed this. If the danger to life is a result of the damage
caused to the window, then it might be sufficient for a conviction for
aggr. Criminal damage.
- Lawful excuses: not the same ones for simple criminal damage under s5 CDA.
o Lawful excuses include self-defence or prevention of crime (provided force is
reasonable).
- S1(3) and s1(1): simple arson (same as simple criminal damage + fire).
- S1(3) and s1(2): aggravated arson (same as aggr. criminal damage + fire).
2
Criminal Damage Act 1971:
- s1(1) CDA: simple criminal damage: 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 is guilty of an offence.
- AR: damage of destruction, of property, belonging to another
- Destroy or damage: some examples are obvious. There is no need for extensive
damage
o Hardman v Chief Constable: expense can be trivial (drawings on pavement
made by using soluble chalks amounted to damage).
o Roe v Kingerlee: court said that damage is a matter of fact and to be
determined in common sense way.
o Usually, if expense is occurred in restoring the property to its previous
condition, damage is likely to be established.
- Property:
o s10(1) CDA 1971:
definition is wide and covers property of tangible nature, real or
personal, including money (+ property referred in s10(1)(a) and (b)).
Domesticated animals + carcasses if turned into property and certain
plants growing in garden.
- Belonging to another:
o Generally criminal law will not interfere with you damaging your own
property
o s10(2) CDA 1971:
property belonging to any person having custody or control of it,
having in it proprietary rights or interest, having a charge on it.
Examples: if I rent my house then the house belongs to landlord; if I
co-own my house; if house is mortgaged, lending institution has an
interest in it, so it belongs to them.
- MR: D must intend to damage or destroy the property or be reckless as to such
damage/destruction AND know that the property belongs to another or be reckless as
to whether the property belongs to another.
o Recklessness: subjective test set out in Cunningham and R v G)
o D will lack mens rea if he is sure that the property belongs to him.
R v Smith: if a person honestly believes property is his will lack mens
rea; it doesn’t matter whether the belief was reasonably held as long as
it was honest.
- Offence is committed when property is damaged or destroyed without lawful excuse.
o s5 CDA: lawful excuses:
s5(2)(a): a person will have lawful excuse if he argues either: he
believed he had consent of the owner; he believed he had consent of
the person he thought (wrongly) was the owner; he believed he would
have had consent of the owner; or he believed he would have had
consent of the person he (wrongly) thought was the owner.
1
, s5(2)(b): D believed property was in an immediate need for protection
AND he believed that the means of protection adopted (which led to
criminal damage) were reasonable given the circumstances.
s5(3): D’s belief doesn’t have to be reasonable as long as it is honestly
held.
- S1(2) CDA 1971: aggravated criminal damage: a person who without lawful excuse
damages or destroys property, belonging to himself or another, intending to destroy
or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be
destroyed or damaged; and intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the
life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would thereby be
endangered shall be guilty of an offence.
- AR:
o Destroy or damage property (any: even the defendant’s himself)
- MR:
o intending to destroy or damage any property, or being reckless as to whether
any property would be destroyed.
o Intending by destruction or damage to endanger life of another or being
reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered (“ulterior”
mens rea).
o NB: D can be found guilty of aggravated criminal damage notwithstanding the
fact that no-one’s life was actually put in danger: sufficient to intend danger to
life or being reckless as to whether life would be endangered.
R v Dudley: if at the time of damage/destruction D intended to
endanger life or was reckless to that risk, guilty notwithstanding the
fact that no-one’s life was put in danger.
o NB no 2: question to ask for a conviction for aggr. criminal damage is whether
the defendant, with the damage of destruction of the property, intended to
threaten someone life or was reckless as to the risk. (E.g. if it is a shooting that
endangers life, and not the damage of property, not liable for aggr. criminal
damage).
R v Steer: confirmed this. If the danger to life is a result of the damage
caused to the window, then it might be sufficient for a conviction for
aggr. Criminal damage.
- Lawful excuses: not the same ones for simple criminal damage under s5 CDA.
o Lawful excuses include self-defence or prevention of crime (provided force is
reasonable).
- S1(3) and s1(1): simple arson (same as simple criminal damage + fire).
- S1(3) and s1(2): aggravated arson (same as aggr. criminal damage + fire).
2
