Criminal Damage

Front 1

Samuels v Stubbs

Back 1

Held: Damage is a matter of fact and degree. There is normally no need to define the terms.

Front 2

Hardman v CCA & Somerset

Back 2

Held: There is no need for damage to be permanent. Expense + inconvenience = evidence of damage.

Front 3

Morphitas v Salmon

Back 3

Facts: Removal of clip and scaffold bar.

Held: Temporary impairment of value+usefulness = damage.

Front 4

s10(1) CDA 1971

Back 4

Defines 'property'
R v Whitely - Information does not fall under s10(1).

Front 5

s10(2)

Back 5

Defines 'Belonging to another'

Front 6

R v Maloney

Back 6

Held: Intention is given its ordinary meaning. Was it D's aim or purpose to destroy or damage the property at the time he carried out the AR?

Front 7

R v G

Back 7

If no intention is found, use this two part test for recklessness:

i.) At the time of committing the AR, was the accused subjectively aware of the risk?
ii.) In the circumstances known to him, was it objectively reasonable for him to take this risk?

Front 8

R v Smith

Back 8

Facts: Defendant ripped up floorboards to remove his sound system.

Held: It is insufficient that D damages the property intentionally, as D must know or be reckless as to whether the property belongs to another. Ignorance of civil law can be a defence.

Front 9

Consent

Back 9

Defence under s5(2)(a). Subjective test s5(3).
- Who does D think owns property?
- Does D believe that this person would have consented to what he did?

Front 10

Jaggard v Dickinson

Back 10

Facts: Consent case. A woman's drunken belief that a house was hers led to her smashing a window.

Held: Defence of s5(2)(a) CDA 1971 allowed despite her drunkenness.

Front 11

R v Denton

Back 11

Held: The general lawfulness/unlawfulness of an activity makes no difference.

Front 12

DPP v Blake

Back 12

Facts: Protecting property in Iraq by damaging military planes.

Held: God cannot consent to damage as property doesn't belong to God.

Front 13

R v Baker & Wilkins

Back 13

Held: s5(2)(b) defence is only available when protecting property, not people.

Front 14

Johnson v DPP

Back 14

Facts: Squatter put a lock on his door to protect it.

Held: There was not a sufficiently 'immediate' threat under s5(2)(b) for this to be a valid defence.

Front 15

R v Hunt

Back 15

Facts: A man set fire to a bedroom in a deserted block of flats.

Held: The act was not objectively capable of protecting and was found to be unreasonable.

Front 16

R v Hill

Back 16

Facts: Damaging submarines.

Held: This act was not objectively capable of protecting and was found to be unreasonable.

Front 17

s(1)(2) CDA 1971

Back 17

Statute for Aggravated Criminal Damage

Front 18

R v Sangha

Back 18

Held: There is no need for life to actually be endangered, only intention or recklessness as to endangering the life of another is required.

Front 19

R v Steer

Back 19

Facts: Man shot 3 times at the windows of a house with a rifle.

Held: No danger to life from the damage caused (broken glass etc). It is important to remember that danger to life must arise from the damage cause, not from the cause of the damage.

Front 20

R v Dudley

Back 20

Facts: Petrol bomb thrown into the window of a house.

Held: D clearly foresaw a risk of damage to the house and also foresaw the endangerment to life his actions would cause.

Front 21

R v Webster

Back 21

Facts: Some boys threw a stone onto a train beneath a bridge.

Held: Trial judge's directions were wrong, but the decision was correct. Clearly the boys intended that the damage would endanger life.

Front 22

R v Latimer/R v Pembilton

Back 22

The doctrine of transferred malice could be available if the MR cannot be made out. Having established an admission to intend to do something, this intention can then be passed to something else.