Aggravated Criminal Damage / Arson

Front 1

S1 (2) Criminal Damage Act 1971

Back 1

Aggravated Criminal Damage.

Front 2

S1 (4) Criminal Damage Act 1971

Back 2

Aggravated Arson.

Front 3

Actus Reus of Aggravated Criminal Damage

Back 3

Destroying or damaging property belonging to another (by fire - arson).

Front 4

Mens Rea of Aggravated Criminal Damage

Back 4

Intentionally or recklessly doing the damage or destruction without lawful excuse.

Intentionally or recklessly endangering the life of another by the destruction or damage.

Front 5

Gayford v Chouler (1898)

Back 5

Slight damage, even the trampling of grass, is sufficient.

Front 6

Destroy meaning

Back 6

Making the property useless, even if not completely destroyed.

Front 7

Roe v Kingerlee (1986)

Back 7

Whether property has been damaged is a "matter of fact and degree". Can be temporary or permanent.

Front 8

Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary (1986)

Back 8

Damage is based on whether it will take time, money and effort to remove.

Front 9

A v R (1995)

Back 9

If there are no costs or efforts in clearing up, and the property can continue to be used, this isn't damage.

Front 10

Morphitis v Salmon (1990)

Back 10

The type and purpose of property is relevant. A scaffolding pole is likely to be scratched during its lifetime.

Front 11

S10 (1) Criminal Damage Act 1971

Back 11

Property includes that of a tangible nature, whether real or personal; including money, wild creatures and carcasses. Doesn't include funghi, flowers, fruit or foliage growing wild on any land.

Front 12

S10 (2) Criminal Damage Act 1971

Back 12

Property belongs to any person:

a) - Having custody or control of it.

b) - Having in it any proprietary right or interest.

c) - Having a charge on it.

Front 13

R v Smith (1974)

Back 13

Electrical wiring in your house can be property "belonging to another". Can still be liable if the property is the defendant's own if charged with the aggravated offence.

Front 14

R v Steer (1987)

Back 14

The danger to life needs to come from the damage or destruction itself, not from the defendant's actual act.

Front 15

R v Webster (1995)

Back 15

The defendant needs to be intentionally/recklessly aware their act would endanger life.

Front 16

R v Sangha (1988)

Back 16

The victim's life does not actually need to be endangered. Liability depends on whether the defendant intended to endanger life or realised life might be endangered.

Front 17

R v Merrick (1995)

Back 17

The damage can be to the defendant's own property if it endangers life.

Front 18

R v Gemmell and Richards (2003) 2-part test for recklessness

Back 18

1. Was the defendant aware of the risk?

2. Was it unreasonable for the defendant to take the risk known to him?