Muhammed Awais
P3/M2 – Criminal Damage
Criminal damage act 1971 – 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 shall be guilty of an offence.
For anyone to be guilty of this offence, the court must prove the Actus Reus and mens rea of the offence, the
first Actus Reus is destroying or damaging. In the Criminal Damage Act 1971 there is no definition of the word
damage. The word damage is used differently in every court, it is up to the judge in court to decide on how to
use the word damage. Damage isn’t limited to just being permanent damage, the thing which decides how
damaged something is the fact and degree of the damage. Also, it is for the court to decide what they think is
damage by using their common sense to decide is something which has occurred is damaged. The courts have
said that there has been damage if time and effort will be required to put the property back into the normal state.
For example, in the case of Roe V Kimberlee, the defendant had messed up the prison cell with his dirty
wellington boots, it had cost the police station £7.00 to clean the whole cell. The defendant was found not guilty
as the magistrates used their common sense to decide. On the other hand, in the case of Hardman V CC of Avon
and Somerset, the defendants were members of the CND and they had painted human silhouettes on the
pavement as it was the anniversary of Hiroshima, the paint was water removable paint and when mixed with
water and pedestrians walking on it would be removed. But before that could happen the local council had
called people to clean the paint away. The courts said that it had cost the local authority some money and work
to clear the paint, so the defendants had caused criminal damage. Also in the case of R V Fiak, where the
defendant was sent to a prison cell for drinking and driving. The defendant placed a blanket down the toilet
which had caused a flooding. The defendant was found guilty as the blanket and cell were out of use until it had
dried out. In the case of Jack, damage was done as jack had cut the chain which had padlock on it, because
he cut the padlock and chain this is causing damage to property because it will cost time and money to
repair it.
The second Actus Reus is property, this is defined in the act, this is defined in section 10 of the Criminal
Damage Act 1971, and this meaning has a much wider meaning than the one in the theft act. This is because in
this one it includes land. So, land can be damaged. One example of how land can be damaged is by throwing
chemical on it, but property doesn’t include intangible items or the items which are in action. This could also
include property such as pets which don’t belong to a person. Overall property includes all items which can be
owned by a person. As the term is very wide some of the things it could include is clothes, furniture, electronic
equipment, tools and cars and there are many more. Real property is land or a building and this could include a
structure which is attached to a building. However, the criminal damage act property definition doesn’t include
such things such as mushrooms which will be growing wildly on any land. And this can be the case of any plant
and fruit which grows freely in any land. The two main differences between the definition of property in the
theft act and criminal damage act is that land is property which can be damaged, but it cannot be stolen.
Secondly intangible items cannot be damaged, but they can be stolen. The padlock is clearly tangible
property.
The last Actus Reus is belonging to another, this is an important aspect as it decides in court to whom the
property in question belongs too. Someone can be found guilty of damaging his own property if it belongs to
someone else at the same time it belongs to them. For example, if there is an outstanding mortgage and someone
burns his own house down which the mortgage is on he can be found guilty on section 1 and 3 of the Criminal
Damage Act 1971. This is because the mortgage company has some right of the property as money was given
on the order. A person has ownership of property if the person has the custody control or control of the property,
secondly if the person has proprietary right or interest on the property and lastly if someone has charge of the
property. This is the same as the definition of belonging to another in the theft act. For example, in the case of R
V Smith 1974, where the defendant had gotten rid of some electrical wiring which was fitted in the flat before
he rented it out. By taking out the wires he had damaged a few systems. In the civil law he would have been
found guilty because the wiring had belonged to the landlord as the property was ‘belonging to another’. But the
defendant wasn’t found guilty because of the mens rea. A person cannot be charged if he damages any property
which belongs only to him. But for the aggravated offence the person can be guilty of this. The padlock didn’t
belong Jack, it belonged to the garage and so all the elements of criminal damage are satisfied.
P3/M2 – Criminal Damage
Criminal damage act 1971 – 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 shall be guilty of an offence.
For anyone to be guilty of this offence, the court must prove the Actus Reus and mens rea of the offence, the
first Actus Reus is destroying or damaging. In the Criminal Damage Act 1971 there is no definition of the word
damage. The word damage is used differently in every court, it is up to the judge in court to decide on how to
use the word damage. Damage isn’t limited to just being permanent damage, the thing which decides how
damaged something is the fact and degree of the damage. Also, it is for the court to decide what they think is
damage by using their common sense to decide is something which has occurred is damaged. The courts have
said that there has been damage if time and effort will be required to put the property back into the normal state.
For example, in the case of Roe V Kimberlee, the defendant had messed up the prison cell with his dirty
wellington boots, it had cost the police station £7.00 to clean the whole cell. The defendant was found not guilty
as the magistrates used their common sense to decide. On the other hand, in the case of Hardman V CC of Avon
and Somerset, the defendants were members of the CND and they had painted human silhouettes on the
pavement as it was the anniversary of Hiroshima, the paint was water removable paint and when mixed with
water and pedestrians walking on it would be removed. But before that could happen the local council had
called people to clean the paint away. The courts said that it had cost the local authority some money and work
to clear the paint, so the defendants had caused criminal damage. Also in the case of R V Fiak, where the
defendant was sent to a prison cell for drinking and driving. The defendant placed a blanket down the toilet
which had caused a flooding. The defendant was found guilty as the blanket and cell were out of use until it had
dried out. In the case of Jack, damage was done as jack had cut the chain which had padlock on it, because
he cut the padlock and chain this is causing damage to property because it will cost time and money to
repair it.
The second Actus Reus is property, this is defined in the act, this is defined in section 10 of the Criminal
Damage Act 1971, and this meaning has a much wider meaning than the one in the theft act. This is because in
this one it includes land. So, land can be damaged. One example of how land can be damaged is by throwing
chemical on it, but property doesn’t include intangible items or the items which are in action. This could also
include property such as pets which don’t belong to a person. Overall property includes all items which can be
owned by a person. As the term is very wide some of the things it could include is clothes, furniture, electronic
equipment, tools and cars and there are many more. Real property is land or a building and this could include a
structure which is attached to a building. However, the criminal damage act property definition doesn’t include
such things such as mushrooms which will be growing wildly on any land. And this can be the case of any plant
and fruit which grows freely in any land. The two main differences between the definition of property in the
theft act and criminal damage act is that land is property which can be damaged, but it cannot be stolen.
Secondly intangible items cannot be damaged, but they can be stolen. The padlock is clearly tangible
property.
The last Actus Reus is belonging to another, this is an important aspect as it decides in court to whom the
property in question belongs too. Someone can be found guilty of damaging his own property if it belongs to
someone else at the same time it belongs to them. For example, if there is an outstanding mortgage and someone
burns his own house down which the mortgage is on he can be found guilty on section 1 and 3 of the Criminal
Damage Act 1971. This is because the mortgage company has some right of the property as money was given
on the order. A person has ownership of property if the person has the custody control or control of the property,
secondly if the person has proprietary right or interest on the property and lastly if someone has charge of the
property. This is the same as the definition of belonging to another in the theft act. For example, in the case of R
V Smith 1974, where the defendant had gotten rid of some electrical wiring which was fitted in the flat before
he rented it out. By taking out the wires he had damaged a few systems. In the civil law he would have been
found guilty because the wiring had belonged to the landlord as the property was ‘belonging to another’. But the
defendant wasn’t found guilty because of the mens rea. A person cannot be charged if he damages any property
which belongs only to him. But for the aggravated offence the person can be guilty of this. The padlock didn’t
belong Jack, it belonged to the garage and so all the elements of criminal damage are satisfied.
