2901209
Description
Mind Map by beccehjane, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by beccehjane
almost 9 years ago
|
|
Criminal Damage: S1 Criminal
Damage Act 1971
- S1(1) Basic
Criminal Damage
- AR
- Destroys/damages
- destroyed: 'when
made useless'
- damaged: 'if expense and
time is incurred in fixing it'
- Roe v Kingerlee, 'matter
of fact and degree'
- Samuel v Stubbs, by 'nature
and the mode' in which it is
affected/treated
- Fiak, impairment of
Value/Usefulness
- Hardman, non permanent
damage still can be CD
- Morphitis, scratch
doesn't affect
ordinary use
- Gayford v Chouler, even slight damage
was sufficient to prove damage
- A v R, no costs/effort to
wipe off, not CD
- destroyed: 'when
made useless'
- Property Belonging to
another
- S10(1) 'includes personal/real property,
money and animals'
- S10(2) 'includes any person having custody/control,
any person having a propietary right/interest and
any person having a charge on it'
- S10(1) 'includes personal/real property,
money and animals'
- Destroys/damages
- MR
- Intention/Recklessness
- Pembilton, intention
to damage property
- Smith, intend to damage property
but I believes property is his, then
no offence
- Test: Did D take an unjustified risk that
property would be destroyed/damaged?
Did he realise the risk?
- Test: Did D take an unjustified risk that
property would be destroyed/damaged?
Did he realise the risk?
- Pembilton, intention
to damage property
- Intention/Recklessness
- Lawful Excuse
- act defines two more
defences S5(2)(a) and
S5(2)(b)
- S5(2)(a) Denton, he believes
that the owner would have
consented to damage
- Jaggard v Dickinson, even if honest belief was formed
while intoxicated the defence S5(2)(a) still applies
- Jaggard v Dickinson, even if honest belief was formed
while intoxicated the defence S5(2)(a) still applies
- S5(2)(b) Merchett, he believes other property
was at risk and in need of immediate
protection and D acted reasonably
- Hunt, S5(2)(b) not in need
of immediate protection
- Hunt, S5(2)(b) not in need
of immediate protection
- S5(2)(a) Denton, he believes
that the owner would have
consented to damage
- Cresswell v Currie, consent by God
to protect property is too remote
- Baker v Wilkins, not available to protect people, only property
- act defines two more
defences S5(2)(a) and
S5(2)(b)
- AR
- S1(2) Aggravated Criminal Damage
- AR
- Basic Criminal
Damage AR
- That
endangers life
- Warwick, danger must come from
destruction of property
- Steer, damage to door and window
but bullets did not endanger life
- Warwick, danger must come from
destruction of property
- Basic Criminal
Damage AR
- MR
- Intent/reckless to
destroying/damaging property
- Intent/reckless to whether life was at
danger by destruction/damage of property
- Sangha, still guilty if D intended/realised
damage would endanger life
- Sangha, still guilty if D intended/realised
damage would endanger life
- Intent/reckless to
destroying/damaging property
- AR
- S1(3) Arson + S1(4)
Aggravated Arson
- AR
- Destroys/damages
- S10(1) Property
- That endangers life
(only aggravated arson)
- By fire
- Destroys/damages
- MR: Intention/Recklessly
- AR
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.