Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
28 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Lloyd v DPP 1992
|
no physical intrusion
|
|
|
Samuels v Stubbs
|
jumped on d policeman's hat, denting it. "temporary functional derangement" of the hat
|
|
|
Hardman v Chief Constable Avon 1986
|
protestors - painted figures on a pavement in solubale whitewash - temporary but - damage covered "mischief done to property" - caused expanse and inconvenience to d Local Authority
|
|
|
A v R
|
spit on the policeman's uniform, could be wiped off with a wet cloth with very little effort - not crim dam
|
|
|
Fancy
|
improved painting
|
|
|
Cox v Riley 1986
|
changed computer programme - Computer Misuse Act 1990
|
|
|
R v Denton 1982
|
employee was asked by d employer to set fire to machinery. Held - honest belief that employer consented. - lawful excuse ss2(a) s 5 Crim dam Act
|
|
|
Jaggard v Dickinson
|
drunk - broke d window of a friend's house - not guilty
|
|
|
Hunt 1977
|
deputy warden - concerned about fire alarm (working?)- to enforce - set fire to an empty room - called firebrigade, evacuated building, pressed button - did not work. Held - guilty - not capable of protecting other property
|
|
|
Hill 1988
|
nuclear strike - ghosh test
|
|
|
Johnson 1994
|
changed a locker - damaged door frame. Held: had moved any of his property in - crim damage
|
|
|
Hutchinson
|
cut wire - human rights - but - gov-nt can derogate from its obligations in case of emergency
|
|
|
R v Jones 2004
|
protested, criminal damage + aggravated trespass
|
|
|
R v Jones 2006
|
...
|
|
|
R v G 2003 (overruled Caldwell)
|
shd b subjective test - children set fire on newspapers - spread to supermarket causing damage of 1000000 pounds. The mens rea of crim dam is satisfied by proof of intention or advertent recklessness
|
|
|
R v Steer 1987
|
fired a rifle - had to intend - glass fragments to endanger life. Danger was caused by d shot not by crim damage
|
|
|
Webster and Warwick (conjoined)
|
stone from d bridge - convicted but quashed - not enough to show/ damage to d train-danger to people's lives
|
|
|
Miller 1983
|
set fire/mattress/ went next door
|
|
|
Dudley
|
petrol bomb into d house
|
|
|
Eley v Lytley 1885
|
...
|
|
|
Gayford v Chouler 1989
|
trampling down grass - CD
|
|
|
Barnet LBC v Eastern Elictricity Board 1973
|
...
|
|
|
Roe v Kingerlee 1986
|
mud on the wall - cost £7 to remove
|
|
|
R v Faik 2005
|
...
|
|
|
Blake v DPP 1993
|
D was a vicar who believed that the Gov-t should not use military force in Kuwait and Iraq in the Gulf War. He wrote a biblical quotation with a marker pen on a concrete wall post outside the Houses of Parliament. He was claiming tht he ws carryingout the instructions of God and this gave him a defence under s.5(2)(a), as God ws entitled to consent to the damage of property, and that the damage he did was in order to protect the property of civilians in Kuwait and Iraq and so he had a defence under s.5(2)(b). Convicted and appealed, both claims rejected.
|
|
|
Ayliffe and others 2005
|
...
|
|
|
R v Smith 1974
|
...
|
|
|
Elliot v C 1983
|
A 14year-old girl with learning difficulties, poured white spirit in a shed and lit it. Acquitted, the risk of destroying the shed wasn't obvious to her.
|
