Criminal Damage Summary

Introduction
Criminal Damage Act 1971 comprises of 3 types of offences:

1. Basic/simple criminal damage

2. Aggravated criminal damage
3. Arson

Basic criminal damage:

s.1(1) of the criminal damage act 1971 states:

“a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending
to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be
destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence’’

Punishment: 10 years of imprisonment

Comprises of 5 elements:

- destruction or damage;
- property;
- belonging to another
- without lawful excuse;
- intention or reckless as to the damage or destruction

Actus Reus of Basic/Simple criminal damage

Damage/Destroy -not defined in the 1971 Act.
-previously, slight damage was also sufficient [Gayford bv Chouler]
-damage is to be determined by the fact of the question [Samuels v
Stubb]
-destroy is where a property has become useless even though it’s
not completely destroyed. [Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon, Roe
v Kingerlee
- criminal damage includes not only permanent or temporary
physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value
or usefulness [Morphitis v Salmon, R v Fiak]
Blake v DPP- biblical quote was written on a wall.
R v Whitely- Computer hacker altered and deleted files.
Property - money or any other personal property, real, things in action, or
other intangible property. [s.10(1) of the CDA 1971]
 -information doesn’t fall in the definition of property [R v Whitely,
Oxford v Moss]
Belonging to another - A person will not be guilty of the basic offence if the property he
destroys or damages is his own. [R v Smith] [S.10(2)]

Mens Rea of Basic Damage

The mens rea for basic criminal damage is intention or recklessness as to the destruction or damage of
property belonging to another. Remember that intention is to be given its ordinary meaning from the
case of R v Molony. Therefore it requires consideration of whether, at the time the defendant carried
out the acutus reus, it was his/her aim, purpose or desire to destroy or damage or property belonging to
another. [ R v Seray-Wurie].

Following the case of R v G and Others where recklessness requires that:

1. There exists a risk;
2. At the time of committing the actus reus, the accused was aware of the risk;
3. In the circumstances known to him, it was objectively unreasonable for the accused
to take the risk.

Defences [lawful excuses]

-s.5.(2)(a)- First excuse: s.5(2)(a) operates where
the defendant believes that the owner would
have consented to the damage.
s.5(3) says that the defendant believes in s5(2)
need not be reasonable. It is only necessary for it
to be honestly held.
-In R v Dixon, defendant’s conviction was
quashed as he thought that his employer
encouraged him to set fire to the cotton mill so
that the employer could make an insurance claim
- [Jaggard v Dickinson] s. 5(3) was applied and d
was given a defence on the basis of the
reasonableness test [intoxication]
-s.5(2)(b) operates where d acts to protect his or
her or another’s property
- The accused must believe that the property was
in immediate need of protection [Subjective Test]
[R v Baker and Wikins, Johnson v DPP- defence
couldn’t be raised]
- damage caused by the accused must be
objectively capable of protecting the property [R
v Hunt]
- it was not sufficient that the accused intended
to prevent further damage.to the property but
also required that the act be objectively capable
of protecting the property from damage. [R v
Hill,Hall] [objective element]

Other lawful excuses

s.5(5) of the Act preserves the availability of the general defenses to criminal offence such as prevention
of crime, duress, self defense, intoxication and etc.

Aggravated Criminal Damage:

S.1(2) of the 1971 Act provides:
"A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property whether belonging to himself or
another:
 (a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property
would be destroyed or damaged; and
(b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger life of another or being reckless as to
whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;
shall be guilty of an offence."

Punishment: lifetime imprisonment

Actus Reus of Aggravated Criminal Damage

Destruction or damage of property
D can commit aggravated criminal damage to
their own property [R v Maitland-Thomas]
(aggravated arson by endangering other’s life)
The defences in s.5(2) do not apply (however, as
with the basic criminal damage, a defendant
might nevertheless have a lawful excuse if any of
the general defenses to the criminal offences
apply.’
it is irrelevant whether the life of another was
actually endangered. [R v Sangha]

Mens Rea of Aggravated Criminal Damage:

1. Intention or recklessness as to the damage or destruction of property,[S.1(2)(a)l; and

2. Intention or recklessness as to the endangerment of life by the damage or destruction, [S.1(2)(b)].

R v Dudley- danger must cause from the damaged property

R v Steer- It was held that this did not constitute the offence under S.1(2) because the prosecution
had alleged that lives might have been endangered by the bullets fired and not by the damaged
property.

Arson
s.1(3) of the 1971 Act provides:
‘’any offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged
as arson’’

Damage or destruction must be caused by a fire.

Mens Rea: defendant to have intended or to have been reckless as to, damage or destruction by fire.

The charge maybe brought under s.1(1) or s.1(2) to either with s.1(3)
arson could be committed by an omission where defendant accidentally started a fire and failed to do
anything to prevent damage. [R v Millar]
Punishment: life imprisonment.