Criminal Damage:
- Basic criminal damage: Section 1 (1) Criminal damage act 1971:
Actus reus: Destroy or damages property belonging to another
Meaning of Damage: Samuels v Stubbs 1972- embrace injury mischief or harm done to property- and
it is unnecessary to establish such definite or actual damage as renders the property useless of
prevents it from serving its normal function. A matter of fact and degree, can be temporary. Need
not be permanent- Hardman v chief constable of Avon 1986- relevant that time, effort and money
had been spent in restoring the damaged property in its original state. The following are indications
of damage:
- I) expense required to remedy damage
- Ii) Effort required to remedy damage- Roe v Kingeriee 1986
- Iii) Impairment of value- Morphitis v Salmon 1990
- Iv) Impairment of usefulness- Morhpitis v Salmon 1990
Property:
- s 10 (1) Criminal damage act 1971- property of tangible nature, whether real or personal,
including money and s 10 (1) (a) wild creatures which have been tamed or are in captivity,
s10 (1) (b) not including mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers, fruit or foilage of a
plan growing wild on any land. R v Whitely 1991- information does not fall within the
definition of property contained in CDA 1971 s 10 (1).
Belonging to another- s 10 (2) CDA 1971
- CDA 1971 S10 (2) (a) having cutody or control over it
- S10 (2) (b) having in it a proprietary right or interest- not equitable interest
- S10 (2) (c) having a charge on it
Mens rea:
- Intention or recklessness as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another.
- Intention to be given ordinary meaning- R v Maloney 1985- when carrying out actus reus-
was it D’s aim or purpose to destroy or damage the property belonging to another
- Recklessness test from R v G
- Two questions arise following this case: 1) Did defendant see the risk of damaging property?
Was defendant subjectively aware of the risk? 2) in the circumstances known to him, was it
unreasonable to take that risk? Was it objectively unreasonable for the accused to take that
risk?
- Furthermore, Did D know or was reckless as to whether the property belonged to another- R
v Smith 1971.
Basic Arson: criminal damage by fire, charged under s (1) and s 1 (3) CDA 1971.
- Actus reus: destroy or damage by FIRE
- Property
- Belonging to another
- Basic criminal damage: Section 1 (1) Criminal damage act 1971:
Actus reus: Destroy or damages property belonging to another
Meaning of Damage: Samuels v Stubbs 1972- embrace injury mischief or harm done to property- and
it is unnecessary to establish such definite or actual damage as renders the property useless of
prevents it from serving its normal function. A matter of fact and degree, can be temporary. Need
not be permanent- Hardman v chief constable of Avon 1986- relevant that time, effort and money
had been spent in restoring the damaged property in its original state. The following are indications
of damage:
- I) expense required to remedy damage
- Ii) Effort required to remedy damage- Roe v Kingeriee 1986
- Iii) Impairment of value- Morphitis v Salmon 1990
- Iv) Impairment of usefulness- Morhpitis v Salmon 1990
Property:
- s 10 (1) Criminal damage act 1971- property of tangible nature, whether real or personal,
including money and s 10 (1) (a) wild creatures which have been tamed or are in captivity,
s10 (1) (b) not including mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers, fruit or foilage of a
plan growing wild on any land. R v Whitely 1991- information does not fall within the
definition of property contained in CDA 1971 s 10 (1).
Belonging to another- s 10 (2) CDA 1971
- CDA 1971 S10 (2) (a) having cutody or control over it
- S10 (2) (b) having in it a proprietary right or interest- not equitable interest
- S10 (2) (c) having a charge on it
Mens rea:
- Intention or recklessness as to destroying or damaging property belonging to another.
- Intention to be given ordinary meaning- R v Maloney 1985- when carrying out actus reus-
was it D’s aim or purpose to destroy or damage the property belonging to another
- Recklessness test from R v G
- Two questions arise following this case: 1) Did defendant see the risk of damaging property?
Was defendant subjectively aware of the risk? 2) in the circumstances known to him, was it
unreasonable to take that risk? Was it objectively unreasonable for the accused to take that
risk?
- Furthermore, Did D know or was reckless as to whether the property belonged to another- R
v Smith 1971.
Basic Arson: criminal damage by fire, charged under s (1) and s 1 (3) CDA 1971.
- Actus reus: destroy or damage by FIRE
- Property
- Belonging to another
