Basic Criminal Damage Cases

Description

A2 Law (Offences Against Property ) Quiz on Basic Criminal Damage Cases, created by Lucy Nove on 08/02/2017.
Lucy Nove
Quiz by Lucy Nove, updated more than 1 year ago
Lucy Nove
Created by Lucy Nove almost 8 years ago
11
0

Resource summary

Question 1

Question
The case of [blank_start]GAYFORD v CHOULER[blank_end] states that property must be physically altered, harmed or impaired to be damaged.
Answer
  • GAYFORD v CHOULER

Question 2

Question
The case of [blank_start]ROE v KINGERLEE[blank_end] states that the jury decides whether property has been destroyed or damaged.
Answer
  • ROE v KINGERLEE

Question 3

Question
The cases of [blank_start]ROE v KINGERLEE[blank_end] and [blank_start]HARDMAN[blank_end] state that it is likely to be criminal damage if it takes money time and/or effort to remove the damage
Answer
  • ROE v KINGERLEE
  • HARDMAN

Question 4

Question
The case of [blank_start]FIAK[blank_end] states that it is criminal damage if the property is temporarily unfit for use.
Answer
  • FIAK

Question 5

Question
The case of [blank_start]A (A JUVENILE) v R[blank_end] states that it is unlikely to be criminal damage if it requires no cost or effort to clean up.
Answer
  • A (A JUVENILE) v R

Question 6

Question
The case of [blank_start]MORPHITIS v SALMON[blank_end] states that the purpose of property may be relevant as to whether it is criminal damage or not.
Answer
  • MORPHITIS v SALMON

Question 7

Question
The case of [blank_start]JAGGARD v DICKINSON[blank_end] states that the belief of lawful excuse under s.5 (2) must be genuinely held, even if the belief wasn't reasonable.
Answer
  • JAGGARD v DICKINSON

Question 8

Question
The case of [blank_start]HUNT[blank_end] 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.
Answer
  • HUNT

Question 9

Question
The case of [blank_start]CRESSWELL AND CURRIE[blank_end] states that for lawful excuse under s.5 (2) (b) D must be protecting property.
Answer
  • CRESSWELL AND CURRIE

Question 10

Question
The case of [blank_start]BAKER AND WILKINS[blank_end] states that D must be protecting property so lawful excuse under s.5 (2) (b) and not a person.
Answer
  • BAKER AND WILKINS

Question 11

Question
The case of [blank_start]PEMBLITON[blank_end] states the D must intend the damage caused and not merely the offence was caused the damage.
Answer
  • PEMBLITON

Question 12

Question
The case of [blank_start]SMITH[blank_end] states that D will lack the mens rea of criminal damage if he is under the mistaken belief that the property is his own.
Answer
  • SMITH

Question 13

Question
The case of [blank_start]G AND R[blank_end] states that D can be reckless as to destroying property belonging to another.
Answer
  • G AND R
Show full summary Hide full summary

Similar

Functionalist Theory of Crime
A M
Realist Theories
A M
Carbohydrates
Julia Romanów
Control, Punishment & Victims
A M
Ethnicity, Crime & Justice
A M
AQA A2 Biology Unit 4: Populations
Charlotte Lloyd
AQA Physics: A2 Unit 4
Michael Priest
Coloured Compounds (AQA A2 Chemistry)
Filip Lastovka
Gender, Crime & Justice
A M
Theories, Theorists and Tests
sarahsing
Biology AQA 3.1.3 Cells
evie.daines