1. Identify parties: R v [ ]
2. Identify D’s potentially criminal action, i.e. D damaging …
3. Identify potential offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971:
o s. 1(1) CDA – basic criminal damage.
o s. 1(2) CDA - aggravated criminal damage.
o ss. 1(1) + 1(3) – arson.
o ss. 1(2) + 1(3) – aggravated arson.
o s. 2 – threats to destroy or damage property.
o s. 3 – possessing anything with intent to damage or destroy property.
2. Establish D has Actus Reus of relevant offence (above) and follow through with Mens Rea:
o s. 1(1) – Intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another without
lawful excuse.
→ AR: D must
‘Destroy or damage’:
o Not defined in CDA.
o Samuel v Stubbs: ‘destroy/damage’:- matter of fact and degree (e.g.
‘damage’ an ordinary word that does not need to be defined).
o A (a juvenile) v R: spitting on a policeman’s jacket was not held to be
criminal damage as there were no costs incurred, monetary, or otherwise.
o As per Hardman v CC of Avon ‘damage’ need not be permanent.
o Roe v Kingerlee: mud on cell wall of prison held to be ‘damage’ despite the
fact that it was easily removable. Time and effort = expenses incurred.
o Morphitas v Salmon: damage includes ‘permanent/temporary impairment
of value or usefulness of property’. On the facts, D dismantled a road block
– scratching it in the process. Held: scratch was not criminal damage as it
did not affect the usefulness/value of the barrier and was physical harm
expected as ordinarily incident to its existence.
o R v Fiak: D flooded prison cell by blocking toilet. Cell and blanket (used to
block toilet) rendered temporarily useless.
‘Property’:
o s. 10(1) – property includes tangible/real or personal/money/wild
creatures tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity.
o R v Whitely: intangible info is not property.
o s. 10(1)(b) –does not include wild mushrooms/fruits/plants.
‘Belonging to another’:
o s. 10(2) – Property shall be treated for the purposes of this act as belonging
to any person having (a) custody of control if it; (b) in it any proprietary
right or interest; (c) a charge on it.
→ MR: D must be shown to have
‘Intention/recklessness as to destroying or damaging the property’:
o R v Smith: Direct intent. D must know that the property belongs to another
or at least realise that it may; they must intend to damage/destroy the V’s
property, or at least realise that their actions may result as such.
o When prosecution relying on recklessness apply R v G: test:
1. At the time of committing the AR, the D must be subjectively
aware of the risk;
, 2. In the circumstances known to the D, the risk of damage
associated with D’s action must be one which is objectively
unreasonable.
→ CC of Somerset & Avon v Shimmen: - on p. ii consider social utility
of D’s action. On facts: D act of punitive social utility (smashing
window vis-à-vis martial arts). Small risk not one worth take. Not
reasonable.
o s. 1(2) – Aggravated Criminal Damage – Destroying or damaging property belonging to another with
intention or recklessness as to destroying the property and also as to endangering life.
→ AR: D must
‘Destroy or damage’ (as above);
‘Property’ (as above);
‘Belonging to D or another’:
NB- D can commit an aggravated criminal damage against his own
property.
→ MR: D must have
‘Intention/recklessness as to destroying or damaging property’; AND
Intention/recklessness as to thereby endangering the life of another.
(R v G test of recklessness applies as above).
o NB- there is no requirement that D actually endangers the life of another;
they must simply intend to or be reckless to doing so: R v Sangha.
o The danger to life foreseen or intended must arise specifically from the
damage caused but not cause the damage:
→ R v Steer: D fired shots through window- Held: not to constitute
aggravated criminal damage as the danger to life flowed from the
bullets not the broken window.
→ R v Steer: when dealing with ‘fire’ it is not ‘the match… or any
other inflammatory agent which D uses which endangers life but
the ensuing burning of the property.’
→ R v Dudley: D threw firebomb into premises which he knew were
inhabited. Held: to be aggravated criminal damage despite the
fact that the flames were immediately extinguished and so no life
was actually endangered.
→ R v Webster: D pushed stone off bridge onto a train: Held to be
aggravated criminal damage as D damaged the train roof with the
intention/reckless to fact that would collapse and endanger life of
passengers on board.
o ss. 1(1) + ss. 1(3) – Arson – destroying or damaging property by fire:
o ss. 1(2) + ss. 1(3) – Aggravated Arson – destroying or damaging property and engendering life by
fire:
→ AR: as above;
→ MR: as above.
o S. 2 – threats to destroy or damage property:
→ AR: D must
Make a threat to another to:
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller gdlrevision. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
