The case of states that property must be physically altered, harmed or impaired to be damaged.
The case of states that the jury decides whether property has been destroyed or damaged.
The cases of and state that it is likely to be criminal damage if it takes money time and/or effort to remove the damage
The case of states that it is criminal damage if the property is temporarily unfit for use.
The case of states that it is unlikely to be criminal damage if it requires no cost or effort to clean up.
The case of states that the purpose of property may be relevant as to whether it is criminal damage or not.
The case of states that the belief of lawful excuse under s.5 (2) must be genuinely held, even if the belief wasn't reasonable.
The case of states that for the lawful excuse under s.5 (2) (b) D must destroy property belonging to another in order to protect other property in need of immediate protection.
The case of states that for lawful excuse under s.5 (2) (b) D must be protecting property.
The case of states that D must be protecting property so lawful excuse under s.5 (2) (b) and not a person.
The case of states the D must intend the damage caused and not merely the offence was caused the damage.
The case of states that D will lack the mens rea of criminal damage if he is under the mistaken belief that the property is his own.
The case of states that D can be reckless as to destroying property belonging to another.
