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.