Criminal Law Criminal Damage

Front 1

Criminal Damage Act 1971
s1(1)

Back 1

Basic Criminal damage

Front 2

Actus Reus

Back 2

D destroys or damages

Front 3

Roe

Back 3

destroy/damage is a question of fact and degree in each case for the jury

Front 4

Hardman

Back 4

Effort and expense is relevant

Front 5

Henderson & Battley

Back 5

expense of removing rubbish is relevant

Front 6

Morphitis

Back 6

permanent or temporary impairment of the value or usefulness of the property ir relevant
nature of the property harmed is significant

Front 7

Drake

Back 7

clamping a car is not criminal damage

Front 8

Fisher

Back 8

removal of parts necessary for a machine to work can be criminal damage

Front 9

Property s10 CDA 1971

Back 9

land may be damaged
intangible property cannot be damaged
wild plants etc cannot be damaged

Front 10

belonging to another

Back 10

s10(2) CDA 1971

Front 11

Mens Rea of CD

Back 11

Intention or subjective recklessness
the damage or destruction itself must be intentional

Front 12

Smith

Back 12

If D believes he is damaging his own property, he lacks the relevant MR

Front 13

R v G

Back 13

intention is subjective only

Front 14

Stephenson

Back 14

the question is whether D realised the risk of damage

Front 15

Cooper

Back 15

if D realised there was a risk but dismissed it as negligible, it cannot be said he realised he was taking an obvious and significant risk

Front 16

Brady

Back 16

removed the obvious and significant from Cooper

Front 17

Aggravated Criminal Damage

Back 17

s1(2) CDA

Front 18

Actus Reus

Back 18

d damaged or destroyed any property

Front 19

Parker

Back 19

life endangerment is an aspect of the Mr

Front 20

Mens Rea

Back 20

intention/subjective recklessness as to damaging or destroying property and endangering life by the damage or destruction

Front 21

Steer

Back 21

D must actually intend or be reckless as to endangering life by the damage

Front 22

Webster & Warwick

Back 22

d was damaging property being reckless as to whether life was endangered

Front 23

Dudley

Back 23

D is liable for the aggravated offence where he intends or is reckless as to endangering life by the damage he intended or was reckless as to causing

Front 24

Arson

Back 24

s1(3) CDA 1971

Front 25

Drayton

Back 25

it is preferable to refer specifically to arson in the charge rather than to damage by property by fire

Front 26

CDA s5(2)(a)

Back 26

belief in consent defence to criminal damage

Front 27

Denton

Back 27

D must honestly believe he had consent from his employer to commit the damage, the reason for the damage is immaterial

Front 28

Blake

Back 28

God cannot consent to damage

Front 29

CDA s5(2)(a)

Back 29

belief in protection of property

Front 30

Baker

Back 30

D's purpose must be to protect property, not a person

Front 31

Jones

Back 31

acting to prevent lawful damage is permitted

Front 32

Hunt

Back 32

D's purpose must be to solely protect property

Front 33

Kelleher

Back 33

D cannot behead Thatcher statue to protect world politics

Front 34

Chamberlain

Back 34

property protected may be intangible

Front 35

Hill & Hall

Back 35

2 stage test
1)what was D's state of mind, did he believe property was in immediate need of protection and that damage was reasonable-subjective
2)was damage caused capable of protecting the property-objective for the judge