CRIMINAL DAMAGE S.1 CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971

Frage	Antworten
s.1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971	'A person who, without lawful excuse, damages or destroys 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 will be guilty of this offence'.
The defendant must destroy or damage the property	Damage is defined as something that takes time, effort or money to repair.
GAYFORD V CHOULER	Damages does not need to be permanent - it can be temporary.
A (A JUVINELLE) V R	Spitting on someone's jacket does not amount to damage.
ROE V KINGERLEE	The act of smearing mud on the walls was clearly damage.
HARDMAN V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF AVON AND SOMERSET CONSTABULARY	The act of drawing on the pavement with soluble paint was damage.
COX V RILEY	The damage need not be visible.
R V WHITELEY	Altering the state of CD discs may amount to criminal damage.
MORPHITIS V SALMON	Damaging scaffolding post did not amount to criminal damage.
R V FIAK	The act of flooding the cell amounted to damage.
Property	Section 10(1) defines property as 'property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money...' However, this EXCLUDES mushrooms, flowers, fruit or foliage growing on any wild land.
Belonging to another	Section 10(2) defines belonging to another as 'someone who has custody or control of the property, or they have right or interest in it, or charge of it'.
R V SMITH	The apartment belonged to the apartment owner and therefore, the defendant had caused criminal damage by removing the wiring.
W	The damage or destruction must be done by the defendant without a lawful excuse
s.5(2)(a) lawful excuse	The defendant honestly believed that he had the consent of the owner of the property or that he would have their consent if they had known the circumstances of the damage or destruction of property.
R V DENTON	The defendant was able to rely on this lawful excuse as he had the consent of the owner of the factory to start the fire.
R V JAGGARD AND DICKINSON	The defendant had an honest belief that the owner of the property would consent to the damage.
s.5(2)(b) lawful excuse	The defendant has a lawful excuse if he had an honest belief that the property was in immediate need of protection and that the means of protection adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all circumstances.
R V HUNT	The phrase 'in order to protect property' has an objective meaning.
R V HILL; HAUL	This established the test for this lawful excuse; 1. Did the defendant honestly believe that he was protecting property? 2. On the facts as the defendant believed them, could the act amount to something done to protect property?
BLAKE V DPP	The defendant did NOT have lawful excuse.
JOHNSON V DPP	The defendant did NOT have lawful excuse.
R V KELLEHER	The defendant did NOT have a lawful excuse.
The defendant must have the intention or must be reckless	The defendant must have the intention to destroy or damage property or must be reckless as to whether such property was damaged or destroyed.
R V SMITH	The defendant believed that the property belonged to him. Therefore, he had no intention to commit the offence.
R V G AND ANOTHER	A person acts recklessly if with respects to; A circumstance when he is aware of a risk that exists of will exist, A result where he is aware of a risk that will occur, And it is, in circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk

Nächster

CRIMINAL DAMAGE S.1 CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Chantal Briancon vor mehr als 8 Jahre