malicious mischief

Question 1

malicious mischief equation

Answer 1

malicious mischief = (actus reus: damaging or destroying property that belongs to someone else) + (mens rea: intention or recklessness)

Question 2

mens rea

Answer 2

Ward v Robertson 1938 JC 32
Held: Not necessary that there should be a deliberate wicked intent to damage someone’s property. It is enough if the person who damaged it is shown to have disregard or disinterest for the property rights of others.

Question 3

can the accused argue they believed they had the right to do so?

Answer 3

Clark v Syme 1957 JC 1
Facts: Neighbour shot his neighbour’s sheep after warning neighbour that if they came onto his land again, he would shoot them.
Legal issue: The accused genuinely believed that he had the legal right to do this.
Held: Actions of shooting the sheep was a deliberate action, that showed a disregard for the property rights of the owner. The fact that he did this under the impression that he was allowed to do so didn’t give him any defence.

Question 4

patrimonial loss

Answer 4

HM Adv v Wilson 1984 SLT 117
Facts: Accused had pressed the emergency stop button on a power station, causing the loss of a large sum of money.
Legal issue: He hadn’t physically damaged anything.
Held: Deliberate interference with the property that led to economic loss, and this was enough.

Question 5

triviality and patrimonial loss

Answer 5

Bett v Hamilton 1998 JC 1
Facts: Accused had moved a security camera so that it no longer covered the front of the complainer’s house. The prosecution argued that this meant that the money that the complainer had paid for this camera was useless, given the increased danger of break in.
Held: Nope, too trivial. It wasn’t really an example of patrimonial economic loss.