Criminal damage Flashcards Preview

criminal law > Criminal damage > Flashcards

Flashcards in Criminal damage Deck (24)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Who is Nick Flyn?

A
  • Criminal damage when he tripped over shoelaces and fell into vases worth £300,000 in 2016
  • Released without charge because it was an accident
2
Q

What does S1(1) and S1(2) of the Criminal Damage act 1971 say?

A

S1(1) - Person without lawful excuse destroys of damages any property belonging to another intending or being reckless to destroy or damage that property
S1(2)- Aggravated criminal damage where someone has intended or been reckless by causing the damage to endanger someones life

3
Q

What is the max sentence for criminal damage?

A
  • 10 years
4
Q

What is the max sentence for aggravated criminal damage?

A
  • Max life
5
Q

What determines where the case is heard?

A
  • The cost accumulated
6
Q

If the damage is less than £5000 where would the case be heard?

A
  • In the magistrates as it would be a summary offence
7
Q

Where would the case be heard if the damage is more than £5000?

A
  • It is an either way offence so can be heard by jury or magistrates at the choice of the D
8
Q
  • Who, and why would somebody argue they have made more damage than is been accused?
A
  • Campaigners often would prefer to be heard by the jury as they have more chance of case discharge
9
Q

What does S10 of the criminal Damage Act 1971 define?

A
  • What Property is
10
Q

When is someone deemed to have damaged property?

A
  • If it permanently or temporarily impairs the value or usefulness of the property
11
Q

Gayford and Chouler 1898

A
  • D walked across field of knee deep grass trampling it
  • Claimed he did not damage to the land itself
  • COA rejected appeal and he was convicted of criminal damage
12
Q

A v R 1978

A
  • Football supported spat at a police officer who was wearing a raincoat which apparently needed dry cleaning
  • Was arrested for criminal damage
  • COA agreed no damage was done and the raincoat could have been wiped with a damp cloth, this is what it was made for
13
Q

Hardman v CC 1986

A
  • D had painted human silhouettes onto pavement to campaign for nuclear disarming after the Hiroshima bomb
  • Appealed claiming it was easily removed but the expense in doing so by the council caused the conviction to be upheld
  • Has Owner incurred expense in restoring property?
  • Objective test as the magistrate or jury decide
14
Q

What is the controversy with banksy and graffiti?

A
  • The boundary between criminal damage and artistic expression is unclear
  • Some of Banksy’s work actually increased the value of property
15
Q

Roe v Kingerlee 1986

A
  • Man in police cell smeared mud over walls costing £7 to remove
  • Magistrates dismissed this claiming there was no real damage
  • On appeal from the prosecution the COA just stressed it is a decision for the fact finder and no them
16
Q

R v Fiak 2005

A
  • Man pushed blanket down cell toilet, flooding cell.
  • He appealed as he said it would have dried out
  • COA said damage includes permanent or TEMPORARY impairment of value or usefulness and so dismissed appeal
  • Objective test as the magistrate or jury decide
17
Q

What does S5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 say?

A
  • Defines without lawful excuse
  • Says someone will have a defence if at the time they believed the property owner would have consented if they had known of the damage and its circumstances
18
Q

What did the Law commissions 1970 report say?

A
  • That the subjective test as set out in Cunningham 1957 could be applied to criminal damage
19
Q

Stephenson 1979

A
  • Further reinforced that the subjective approach from Cunningham was appropriate
  • Homeless man crawled into haystack to keep warm and lit a fire
  • Destroyed the hay and a nearby building with equipment in
  • He had a long history of schizophrenia so did not see the possible danger
  • TJ misdirected the jury away from the subjective test and so on appeal his convicted was quashed
20
Q

MPC v Caldwell 1981

A
  • HOL redefined meaning of recklessness and it then took 22 years for the redefinition to be corrected
  • Caldwell was convicted of aggravated damage
  • He got drunk and set fire to a persons hotel who he did not like but it was extinguished before much damage could be done
  • HOL ‘intoxication is no defence to a crime in which reckless is enough to constitute the necessary MR’
  • Therefore this test changed the reckless used in criminal damage to an objective test
21
Q

R v G 2003

A
  • TJ was bound by Caldwell
  • 2 Boys entered back of a coop and lit newspapers and threw them under wheely bins which spread to coop causing over £1 million damage
  • COA rejected the appeal and it went to HOL who quashed the conviction and changed back to a
    subjective test
  • A person acts recklessly within the meaning of S1 CDA 1971 with respect to
    1- Circumstances where he is aware of a risk that exists or will exist
    2- A result when he is aware of a risk that is will occur
22
Q

Elliot v C 1983

A
  • 14 Year girl who was low on intelligence entered shed and lit fire to white spirit to keep warm
  • £3000 damage
  • She did not appreciate the risks but precedent from Caldwell had to be followed so she was convicted after the prosecution appealed TJ decision
23
Q

What did Lord Bingham say when discussing overturning Caldwell?

A
  • It is not clearly blameworthy to do something involving a risk of injury to another if one genuinely does not perceive the risk
24
Q

What are the criticisms of the question of recklessness being subjective to the individual?

A
  • There is no benefit for property owners
  • ## No real deterrent ( but then objective would not be a deterrent because they had no idea what they were doing would be damaging)