Basic criminal damage

Question 1

What is the offence of basic criminal damage?

Answer 1

When a person:
* without lawful excuse:
* destroys or damages
* property
* belonging to another
* intending or recklessness as to damage or destruction of property.

max sentence is 10 years

Question 2

What is the actus reus for basic criminal damage?

Answer 2

• Destroy or damage: idea that following D’s action, property ceases to exist (question of fact) - need not be permanent as long as time, effort and money is needed to restore. Can be by omission where there is a legal duty to act.
• Property: any tangible nature, whether real or personal (not inclu. plants or a child)
• Belonging to another: can be owned by more than one person - if D owns property but if another one owns same property

Question 3

What is the mens rea of basic criminal damage?

Answer 3

Intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of property belonging to another.
Recklessness:
- at time of comitting act, D was subjectively aware of risk and
- in cricumstances known to D, it was objectively unreasonable for D to take that risk.

not sufficient that D does act that damages property intentionally, but also be proved D was reckless.

Question 4

Basic arson AR & MR?

Answer 4

• Destroy or damage by fire
• property
• belonging to another
• without lawful excude
• intention or recklessness as to destruction or damage of property belonging to another by fire.

Question 5

What is meant by without lawful excuse in both criminal damage/arson?

Answer 5

Anything that falls out of a lawful excuse such as:
* any general defence
* Section 5(2) Criminal Damage Act lawful excuses defences (applies to basic criminal damage or arson not aggravated form)

Question 6

What are the two lawful excuse defences in Section 5(2) CDA?

Answer 6

• Section 5(2)(a): operates where D believes owner would have consented to the damage and,
• Section 5(2)(b): operates where D acts to protect their or another’s property.

Question 7

Explain what Section 5(2)(a) entails?

Answer 7

It is where D believes owner would have consented to damage and says that D’s belief need not be reasonable - only necessary to show belief was held honestly

Question 8

Section 5(2)(a) - D believes owner would have consented to damage?

Answer 8

• at the time of act alleged to constitute offence, D believed that person whom he believed to be entitled to consent to damage or destrouction had consented or would have consented to if they had known.
• e.g., mistaken belief due to voluntary intoxication falls here = subjective test, not about belief being reasonable but whether held honestly
• D’s motive for causing damage is irrelevant = as long as D honestly believes owner of property has or would have consented to damage to property

limits: God being one to provide consent, however genuine and honestly held is not seen as a lawful execuse

Question 9

What does Section 5(2)(b) entail?

Answer 9

If D destorys or damages or threatened to destroy or damage property in question, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another and at time of act alleged to constitute offence he beleived:
* property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection and
* that means of protection adopted or prosed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all circumstances (subjective)
* to be a lawful excuse defence the damage cause by D must be objectively capable of protecting property = not based on reasonableness

availabilioty of other general defences such as self-defence and duress