Crime - Criminal damage

Question 1

Simply criminal damage

Definition of simple criminal damage

Answer 1

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage, or being reckless as to destruction/ damage.

Question 2

Simple criminal damage

Four elements to the Actus Reus

Answer 2

1. destroy or damage
2. property
3. belonging to another
4. without lawful excuse

Question 3

Simple criminal damage

What will be included in ‘damage’? General rule?

Answer 3

• Includes something which impairs value/ usefulness
• General rule is it will be damage if there is an expense incurred in rectifying

Question 4

Simple criminal damage

Broad meaning of ‘property’?

Answer 4

Must be something tangible - i.e. can’t be a bank account

Question 5

Simple criminal damage

Meaning of property - animals?

Answer 5

Yes, if tamed/ kept in captivity, or, if being ‘reduced into possession’ (e.g. a rabbit that’s been snared)

Question 6

Simple criminal damage

Meaning of property - plants?

Answer 6

Similar to animals, so wild plants can’t be ‘property’, but stuff growing (e.g.) in a local authority park can be.

Question 7

Simple criminal damage

Can someone cause criminal damage to their own property?

Answer 7

Generally no, unless someone else has a proprietary right to it.

Question 8

Simple criminal damage

Things included in the meaning of ‘belonging to another’? Examples?

Answer 8

Includes property over which the victim has:
* legal ownership
* custody or control (e.g. a library book)
* a proprietary right or interest (e.g. landlord of a rented house)
* a charge (e.g. lender to a mortgaged property, (who will also have a proprietary interest))

Question 9

Simple criminal damage

Mens rea of simple criminal damage?

Answer 9

The damage is done
‘intentionally or recklessly’
AND
D knew or believed that the property belonged to another’

Question 10

Simple criminal damage

What’s the test for recklessness?
Objective or subjective?

Answer 10

Subjective.
Whether this particular D foresaw the (unjustified) risk of criminal damage, and went on to take it.

Question 11

Simple criminal damage

D ‘knows or believes that the property belongs to another’. Objective or subjective? Examples?

Answer 11

Based subjectively, on the basis of their honest belief. So if D cuts up a dress in the (mistaken) genuine belief that the dress belongs to them, then it won’t be criminal damage.

Question 12

Criminal damage

To which kinds of offences do the statutory lawful excuses apply?

Answer 12

Simple criminal damage or simple arson - they do not apply to aggravated criminal damage or aggravated arson

Question 13

Criminal damage

What are the two ‘lawful excuses’?

Answer 13

1. Belief in consent
2. Protection of property

Question 14

Lawful excuse

Belief in consent? Objective or subjective?

Answer 14

Purely subjective
Will be an excuse if D had an honest belief that the person entitled to consent would have done so if they had known of the circumstances.

Question 15

Lawful excuse

Belief in consent - what is included in ‘circumstances’?
Protesters?

Answer 15

• must be linked directly, so they might include the time, place, and extent of the damage
• protester submitted she honestly believed that bank would have consented to its smashed windows if it had known more about the impact of climate change. Not accepted - ‘circumstances’ don’t include the political/ philosophical beliefs of the person causing the damage

Question 16

Lawful excuse - belief in consent

Example where D broke into the wrong person’s house because she was drunk?

Answer 16

D believed (correctly) that her friend would not object to D breaking into the friend’s house. D was drunk, and so broke into the wrong house.
Despite being drunk, D was able to rely on it, because it’s a purely subjective test: only requirement is that the belief be honestly held.

Question 17

Lawful excuse - need of protection

Meaning of defence?

Answer 17

D must have believed the property was in immediate need of protection, and the means adopted by D must have been reasonable in the circumstances.

Question 18

Lawful excuse - need of protection

‘Purpose’ element?

Answer 18

1. Did D honestly believe that their action was protecting or capable of protecting property? (subjective)
2. Was D’s real purpose protection of property? (Objective - will look at factors including the remoteness and/or effectiveness of the claimed ‘protective’ action. e.g. judge might decide that the ‘real purpose’ was something else, like a publicity stunt)

Question 19

Lawful excuse - need of protection

What does the nature of the ‘need’ have to be?
Objective or subjective?

Answer 19

D must honestly believe that the property is in immediate need of protection. (so it’s a subjective test)

Question 20

Lawful excuse - need of protection

Need for the damage to be reasonable - subjective or objective?

Answer 20

Subjective - D must have honestly believed that the damage or destruction was reasonable in the circumstances.

Question 21

What is ‘arson’?

Answer 21

Exactly the same elements as criminal damage, it’s just that the damage is specifically being cause by fire.

Question 22

Aggravated criminal damage

Meaning of aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 22

Destroying or damaging property with intent or recklessness.

Question 23

Aggravated criminal damage

1. Can D rely on one of the lawful excuses for aggravated criminal damage?
2. Can D raise one of the general defences?

Answer 23

1. No
2. Yes

Question 24

Aggravated criminal damage

Key difference in the relevant property for aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 24

It doesn’t have to ‘belong to another’ the property could be someone else’s, or it could be D’s.

Question 25

# Aggravted criminal damage Mens rea for aggravated criminal damage? (2)

Answer 25

* intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property (same as for simple CD); **and** * intention or recklessness as to the endangerment of life

Question 26

# Aggravated criminal damage Does the criminal damage actually need to endanger life?

Answer 26

No - sufficient that it was intended to endanger life, or that D was reckless as to the possibility that it might endanger life

Question 27

# Aggravated criminal damage Need for connection between the damage and the endangerment? In the case of arson?

Answer 27

To satisfy the mens rea, D must intend *by that damage* to endanger life (or be reckless as to that) i.e. if a bullet is shot through a window, for aggravated criminal damage the endangerment to life must come from the broken glass, rather than from the gun. BUT, for arson, the endangerment can be caused by the fire itself, because it would be 'absurd to suggest that [harm from smoke/ incineration] did not result from the damage to the building'

Question 28

Three key differences between the 'simple' CD offences and 'aggravated' CD offences

Answer 28

1. Property damaged or destroyed doesn't have to belong to another 2. Additional element to the mens rea - endangerment of life (intention or recklessness) 3. Statutory defences of lawful excuse are not available

Question 29

Maximum sentence for arson?

Answer 29

Life imprisonment