Criminal damage Introduction You will be dealing with the offence of criminal damage contrary to s.

.1(1), (2) and (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. o This Act, which replaced the Malicious Damage Act 1861, created a number of offences that could be committed against property. This chapter is confined to the offences of o simple criminal damage contrary to s.1!1" of the 1#$1 Act, o aggravated criminal damage contrary to s.1!%" and o arson contrary to s.1!&". 'n addition, this chapter co(ers the de ences to criminal damage provided !y s." of the 1#$1 Act. The ma)imum sentence for simple criminal damage is 1* years+ imprisonment.

 ,or aggra(ated criminal damage and arson the ma)imum sentence is life imprisonment. -ote that arson can be either +simple+ or +aggra(ated+. The ma)imum penalty is the same whether arson is of the simple or aggra(ated form, but a defendant con(icted of aggra(ated arson is li.ely to recei(e a longer sentence of imprisonment than a defendant con(icted of simple arson. /emember, the life sentence is a ma)imum sentence so the 0udge has a certain amount of discretion as to the penalty he awards. The aggravating actor re1uired for aggra(ated offences is that the de endant must eit#er intend !y virtue o t#e damage to, or destruction o , t#e property to endanger li e or !e rec$less as to %#et#er it %ill do so.

 The general rule is that the property damaged must belong to another, but an e)ception to this is aggravated criminal damage contrary to s.1!%" which does not re&uire t#at t#e property !elong to anot#er. Therefore, this offence can be committed by way of the destruction of or damage to one's o%n property. This is because the misc#ie !e#ind t#is o ence is endangerment to li e.

( ence 1) *imple criminal damage De inition *ection 1(1) of the 2riminal Damage Act 1#$1 A person who %it#out la% ul e+cuse destroys or damages any property !elonging to anot#er intending to destroy or damage such property or !eing rec$less as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

A, The actus reus of simple criminal damage is the !1"destruction o or damage to !%" property !&" !elonging to anot#er. 't is necessary to consider the meaning of the terms +destroy+, +damage+, +property+ and +belonging to another+ as they apply under the 1#$1 Act. Relation with theft: The destruction o property could also amount to t#e t contrary to s.1 o t#e -#e t Act 19./.

1. Destroy3 included building, animal/plant, even not completely destroyed, still will be covered under damage part 4)amples of destruction to property might include o demolishing a !uilding, o .illing an animal or o spraying weed.iller on somebody+s cherished plant. The meaning of +destroy+ does not seem to ha(e caused problems for the courts and it is not difficult to see why this is, as e(en where there might be doubts as to whether property was totally destroyed it will, by definition, #ave su ered damage %#ic# can !e properly c#arged under t#e Act. The level o damage caused will be one of the factors ta$en into account !y t#e court when determining t#e sentence of a person con(icted of criminal damage.

Damage3 depend on the degree and fact, even slight damage is sufficient if interferences with the integrity of the property 5ne of the difficulties with this offence is determining to what e)tent the property must be interfered with in order to amount to criminal damage. Damage to property need only !e slig#t to result in a person being charged with the offence. *cratc#ing a car or crac$ing a %indo% are li.ely to be su icient inter erences %it# t#e integrity o t#e property to amount to criminal damage. 6enerally it is not difficult to determine that property has been damaged. The 1uestion as to whether it is +damaged+ for the purposes of the 2riminal Damage Act 1#$1 is one o act and degree !2o) ( /iley 71#868".

'ncluded modified the digital content of dis. 7erase8 impair its physical content 7the card for e)ample cannot be used anymore8 Co+ v ,iley -ote that the defendant in this case would now be charged with an offence contrary to s.& of the 2omputer Misuse Act 1##* 3 unaut#orised modi ication o computer material 3 !ut the case is still good authority for certain other situations where material is stored in electro0magnetic orm suc# as audio or video tapes or %#ere t#e e ect o t#e modi ication o t#e contents o a computer 1suc# as erase t#e content2 +on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition' !s.&!6" of the 2omputer Misuse Act 1##*". it was held to be damage to erase t#e memory rom a plastic circuit card which controlled a computerised saw9 alt#oug# t#e in ormation stored %as intangi!le property, !ut the court too. the (iew that the card itsel #ad !een damaged

 13(") Criminal damage Act provided t#at %#ere t#e e ect o t#e modi ication o t#e contents o a computer not !e regarded as criminal damage unless computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition' :imilarly, impairment of use was treated as damage in 4#iteley. ;, a computer hac.er, gained unauthorised access to a computer networ. and altered data contained in dis$s in t#e system. 4rasure of material from such tapes would still constitute criminal damage. Anot#er point o argue is that the particles in the dis. altered were undoubtedly part of the dis. and the dis$ %as rendered less valua!le to its o%ner as a result.

'ncluded water down the mil. as become less (aluable and become spoiling 5ill %atered do%n 6o#n's mil$. 't is li.ely that this would amount to criminal damage as it has been held that property may be damaged e(en though there is no interference with its performance or if it is made less valua!le !7ing v 8ees !1#<8"" and ood is li$ely to !e damaged !y spoiling 9 : !Roper v Knott 718#88". 5ecome less valua!le) *cratc#ing a car or crac$ing a %indo% are li.ely to be su icient inter erences %it# t#e integrity o t#e property to amount to criminal damage. o 8ess valua!le point mean t#at it does not #ave to !e p#ysical damage Anot#er eg) remove a door rom someone;s #ouse or to render a car immo!ile !y t#e removal o its !attery

'ncluded using water soluble material to draw on pa(ement as need large e)pense to get rid of it *usie %as a pavement artist %#o used %ater solu!le c#al$s and paints to ma$e pictures on t#e pavement. As to whether :usie+s pa(ement pictures constitute criminal damage might depend upon t#e potential e ort and e+pense which may be involved in recti ying t#e #arm. 'n <ardman pa(ement pictures done in water soluble paint were held to amount to damage because the local aut#ority %as put to t#e e+pense o using #ig# pressure %ater =ets to remove t#em.

'ncluded impairing usefulness of property Impairing t#e use ulness o property can also amount to +damage+ 3 for e)ample, removing a part rom or dismantling a mac#ine so that it no longer wor.s properly eg. remo(ing a rotor arm from a car. 'n this situation the de endant s#ould !e c#arged %it# damaging t#e mac#ine [not the part - unless the part itself has been damaged] !4oolcoc$ 71#$$8".

Contrast 4)cluded splitting on clothes which no need large e)pense to rectify =ill spat at Tom and her spittle landed on his coat. A (a =uvenile) v , 71#$88 it was held that spitting on a policeman's coat would not amount to criminal damage where the spittle could !e removed %it# a damp clot#. 't would seem that =ill would not !e guilty of criminal damage unless s#e spat 9 : somet#ing at Tom which would re&uire e+penditure to clean.

Contrast 4)cluded damage to something which not affect its (alue and usefulness >rian scratc#ed #is initials on some sca olding which had been erected on the house ne)t door. >orp#itis v *almon 71##*8 it was held by the Di(isional 2ourt of the ?ueen+s >ench that as a scratc# amounted to a normal incident in relation to sca olding and %ould not amount to an impairment of its value or use ulness and %as not 'damage' for the purposes of the 2riminal Damage Act. o Scaffolding3 metal poles and wooden boards that are structure for wor.ers to stand on *ca olding components get scratc#ed in t#e normal course o events.

ommentary This case shows that whether or not damage has occurred can be determined only by considering the ob0ect and the nature of the change wrought to it. I D #ad scratc#ed a piece o urniture instead of a scaffold bar, the 0ury would no doubt ha(e considered t#e damage element satis ied. Again, if he had been charged with damage to the barrier as a whole, by dismantling it, he might ha(e been con(icted.

Argument case @lyod 2an be consent to criminal damage but argument from academician 8lyod 2an a person consent in law to the damage of their propertyA 6enerally a person can, in law, consent to damage to t#eir property. :uch a consent is very unli$ely to !e contrary to pu!lic policy. 'n the case of @loyd the ?ueen+s >ench Di(ision held that the magistrates+ court had rightly found that 8loyd #ad consented to t#e ris$ o #is car !eing damaged o although :mith+s (iew is that it is unli.ely that the owner of property would be deemed to ha(e consented to a wholly unreasonable condition!

Contrast) >ay e+cluded clamping o t#e car 1smtg adding instead o removal o smtg20 !ecome less valua!le 1car cannot operate2 2ourt re0ected @loyd+s argument that clamping #is car %as an o ence o criminal damage, o Bowe(er :mith is of the (iew that if a car can be damaged by the remo(al of something, 'it seems logical t#at it can !e damaged !y adding somet#ing'. o Bowe(er, it does not automatically follow that it would be criminal damage it might be that the clamper had the right to clamp but as :mith points out in his commentary +-either :tear ( :cott nor the present case decides whether he has the right to do it or not.+

"rgument: ;hy did Crofessor :mith consider the reason for the court re0ecting the defendant+s argument in this case to be +not so clear+A >ecause the court said it was bound by the ratio decidendi in :tear ( :cott but in :mith+s (iew it is not entirely clear that the ratio decidendi of the two cases is the same. -ote that 8loyd %as ollo%ed in >itc#ell !2arl" 7%**<8

%. ?roperty3 e#cluded intangible property/wild plant but included land *ection 13(1) of the 2riminal Damage Act 1#$1 de ines %#at is 'property' or t#e purposes o t#e Act. 't follows that i somet#ing %#ic# is destroyed or damaged does not all %it#in the definition of property contained in that section, t#en t#ere can !e no o ence o criminal damage. *ection 13 says that property o a tangi!le nature, %#et#er real or personal, and including money, may be the sub0ect of a charge of criminal damage

 Croperty 'ncluded) o %ild animal tamed or $ept in captivity o %ild animal@carcasses reduced into possession Into possession included in t#e process o reduction !ut not %#ic# #as !een lost@a!andoned o *u!=ect to trust o ?roperty o corporation !elong to corporation 4)cluded o %ild mus#room 1any ungus2 @ lo%er@ ruit@ oliage o 4ild animal o Animal in possession #ad !een lost@a!andoned o Carcass o no possession

Different btw property meaning in s.< of theft Act Three differences 1. 8and may not !e stolen but it can !e t#e su!=ect o criminal damage. 2. Intangi!le property can !e stolen !see 2hapter 1%" but it cannot !e t#e su!=ect o criminal damage. &. Although it is not normally theft to pic$ %ild mus#rooms, ruit or oliage, it is theft when it is done for commercial purposes. ;hate(er the moti(e, it is not criminal damage although you should note that land itself may be the sub0ect of criminal damage.

Application 6ane, %#ile on a country %al$, inds and eats some %ild mus#rooms. Cro(ided t#ese %ere %ild mus#rooms, 6ane %ill not !e guilty o criminal damage as wild mushrooms are specifically e+cluded !y s.13(1)(a) rom t#e de inition o property capable of being damaged for the purposes of the 2riminal Damage Act.

It is raining so 6ane !rea$s a %indo% to gain entry to a #ouse in order to ta$e s#elter. =ane is guilty o criminal damage9 she has damaged property !elonging to anot#er. The fact that she mig#t get %et in the rain is unli$ely to !e su icient to afford her the defence under s.D!%" !a".

As s#e leaves, s#e pic$s some lo%ers rom t#e #ouseo%ner's garden to ta$e #ome %it# #er. Although s.13(1)(!) speci ically e+cludes %ild lo%ers from the definition of property for the purposes of the 2riminal Damage Act, !ut these lo%ers %ould appear to !e cultivated plants which are property !elonging to anot#er. As s#e intended to pic$ t#em and assuming s#e $ne% t#ey !elonged to anot#er, s#e %ould !e guilty o criminal damage.

4ild animal still %ild 1not yet property2, until t#ey all into t#e trap Cress%ell v D?? -#e de endants, had entered the property and destroyed t#e traps in order to sa eguard A%ildB !adgers. 'n de ence, t#ey contended t#at t#e !adgers %ere no longer %ild !ut ormed ApropertyE within s.1* and as such they were acting to safeguard the property !!adgers reduced into possession". This argument was re0ected by the Di(isional 2ourt. Feane @.=. asserted that where a trap has been established a %ild animal %ill not !e Ain t#e course o !eing reduced into possessionB until t#e point at %#ic# t#e animal enters t#e trap9

5ody part@5ody remain cannot !e property unless reduced into possession *#arpe !18D$", As it %as said in t#is case, 'a !ody %ants no o%ner'. -#e same rule applies to !ody parts. 7elly o a human s.eleton was deemed to be stolen o <uman !ody parts or a #uman corpse are not property unless they are used or e+#i!ition or teac#ing purposes. o *o a #uman s$eleton used !y a medical student %ould !e property %#ic# can !e stolen. Alt#oug# t#is is t#e t case, !ut in t#is section can !e regarded as reduced into possession %#en used or medical teac#ing purpose

3. 5elonging to anot#er ,or the offence of criminal damage contrary to s.1!1" to lie, the property destroyed or damaged must !elong to anot#er. *ection 13(2) defines for these purposes when property belongs to another. 'n essence property %ill !e treated as !elonging to anot#er who o has custody or control of it o #as a proprietary rig#t or interest in it !this includes the situation where property is sub0ect to a trust and it is pro(ided that the person to whom it belongs is any person ha(ing a right to enforce the trust" o #as a c#arge on it.

Different with Gbelonging to anotherH of s,D theft Act :ection 1*!%" of the 2riminal Damage Act does not include property got !y anot#er's mista$e as does s.D!<" of the Theft Act 1#68. :ection 1*!%" ma.es e)plicit !s.1*!%" !c"", which s." does not, that property %ill !e treated as !elonging to a person %#o #as a c#arge on it.

Application Crica destroys #er car so t#at s#e can claim t#e insurance money from the insurance company. Bas 4rica committed the actus reus of criminal damageA The car !elongs to Crica and s.1!1" of the 2riminal Damage Act pro(ides that the property must !elong to anot#er. *#e is t#ere ore entitled, in la%, to destroy or damage #er car9 it will thus not amount to criminal damage !see Denton 71#8%8". 'f 4rica did ma.e a successful fraudulent insurance claim, s#e mig#t !e guilty o an o ence o deception.

 'n Denton, D set fire to T+s property at T+s re1uest, to perpetrate an insurance fraud. Be was con(icted at first instance but his con(iction was later 1uashed. -#e insurance company #ad no proprietary interest in t#e property damaged and - %as t#e sole o%ner, so could not be liable. As @ord @ane 2= said in this case 'It is not an o ence or a man to set lig#t to #is o%n property'. And i - %as not lia!le, D could not !e eit#er !ecause o t#e presence o -'s consent !see s.D!%"3lawful e)cuse".

2ontrast D damage o%n car %#ic# t#e car also s#ared !y #is riend@D damage #is rented #ouse s.13(2) goes on to pro(ide that in certain cases you may be guilty of an offence of damaging your o%n property if o the property is in the custody or control of another or o if another has a proprietary right or interest in it or o if another has a charge o(er it. Thus a landlord who has leased his house to D may !e guilty o criminal damage to t#at property i #e deli!erately damages it. Applied t#e same to D damage #is o%n car %#ic# #is riend #as propriety rig#t 8i$e%ise i a landlord damages t#e #ouse let to t#eir tenant, or vice versa, t#e actus reus is satis ied.

I no propriety rig#t@interest on %ild animal, t#en it is not a valid property Cress%ell v D?? -#e de endants, had entered the property and destroyed t#e traps in order to sa eguard A%ildB !adgers. 'n de ence, t#ey contended t#at t#e !adgers %ere no longer %ild !ut ormed ApropertyE within s.1* and as such they were acting to safeguard the property !!adgers reduced into possession". This argument was re0ected by the Di(isional 2ourt. Do individual #ad any proprietary rig#t or interest in t#e !adgers, or #ad possession or control o t#em, t#ere ore t#ey are not yet a valid property

*ummary The actus reus of simple criminal damage re1uires proof that the defendant %it#out la% ul e+cuse destroyed or damaged property !elonging to anot#er. Although +destruction+ as an element of the offence does not pose particular problems, the issue of whether damage amounts to criminal damage has resulted in a number of cases, some of which ha(e been e)amined in this chapter.

>ens rea s.1(1) of the 2riminal Damage Act, mens rea re1uirement for this offence is that the defendant 'intentionally' or 'rec$lessly' destroyed or damaged the property belonging to another. -ote that a de endant convicted o intentional criminal damage is li$ely to receive a #ig#er sentence than a defendant con(icted of rec.less criminal damage ,ollowing the case of R v G 7%**<8 rec.lessness in this conte)t means oresig#t o conse&uences on t#e part o t#e de endant. :o it is a !asic intent crime and therefore self3induced into+ication is no de ence.!>a=e%s$i)

1. Intentional destruction or damage to property !elonging to anot#er 't must be pro(ed that the de endant intended !y #is conduct to destroy or damage property !elonging to anot#er.

Application 6o#n %as $ic$ing a !all around in #is garden. <e aimed or a tree !ut missed and t#e !all #it #is neig#!our's %indo% !rea$ing it. Is 6o#n guilty o criminal damageE -ote that it is not su icient merely to pro(e that a de endant intended t#e particular conduct which resulted in the damage. -o intend to $ic$ a !all in the street is not to !e e&uated with intending to !rea$ a %indo%. Thus, where a defendant has bro.en a window ha(ing .ic.ed a ball through it, it must !e proved t#at #e intended to !rea$ t#e %indo% in order to convict #im o intentional criminal damage.

 'f the prosecution cannot pro(e that beyond reasonable doubt, he will not be guilty of intentional criminal damage. !-ote that if =ohn was charged with intentionally or rec.lessly damaging property belonging to another, if the prosecution pro(ed that he was rec.less 3 see below - he would be properly convicted of reckless criminal damage.) -rans er >alice may not possi!le as t#e tree is not a possi!le Fictim o property as t#e tree !elong to #is

*usie #ated criminal la% so s#e decided to destroy #er te+t!oo$. Gn ortunately, s#e mista$enly destroyed #er riend's !oo$. Is s#e guilty o criminal damageE 't is no o ence under s.1!1" where a defendant intends to destroy or damage property %#ic# is #is o%n property or which he honestly e(en mista.enly belie(es to be his own. As 6ames 86 said in the case of :mith 71#$<8 ... 7'8n our 0udgment no o ence is committed under this section if a person destroys or causes damage to property belonging to another i #e does so in t#e #onest t#oug# mista$en !elie that the property is his own and pro(ided that the belief is honestly held it is irrele(ant to consider whether or not it is a 0ustifiable belief. 't follows that i *usie #onestly !elieved t#e !oo$ !elonged to #er, then s#e %ould not !e guilty o criminal damage.

2. ,ec$less destruction or damage to property !elonging to anot#er 't is clear from this that the words +intentionally+ and +rec.lessly+ in the 2riminal Damage Act 1#$1 were intended to reflect and clarify the interpretation by the 2ourt of 2riminal Appeal in Cunning#am 71#D$8 of the term +maliciously+. This is how +rec.lessly+ was interpreted by the 2ourt of Appeal in the case of :tephenson 71#$#8, which followed the 2riminal Damage Act. :tephenson+s con(iction for criminal damage was 1uashed by the 2ourt of Appeal because the issue of whether he had foreseen a ris. of damage had not been clearly left to the 0ury. 'n 2astle 7%**<8 the 2ourt of Appeal held that the Cald%ell de inition o rec$lessness %as no longer appropriate and applied the decision of the Bouse of @ords in , v H 7%**<8.

,vH A person acts rec.lessly within the meaning of section 1 of the 2riminal Damage Act 1#$1 with respect toI o a circumstance %#en #e is a%are o a ris$ that it e)ists or will e)ist9 o a result %#en #e is a%are o a ris$ that it will occur9 and it is, in the circumstances .nown to him, unreasona!le to ta$e t#e ris$. The offence in this case was arson, being rec.less as to whether life was endangered !s.1!%" and !&" but the same principles apply to the offence under s.1!1" in respect of rec.lessness". The current definition of rec.lessness as it applies to criminal damage now accords with that in clause 18!c" of the Draft 2riminal 2ode.

'ncluded close their mind to the ris. 'f D closes #is mind to t#e ris$, he can found rec.less within the sub0ecti(e definition as where #e claim t#at #is e+treme anger !loc$ed out o #is mind t#e ris$ involved in #is action o ?ar$er 1#$$ 7no%ledge@appreciation o a ris$ must #ave entered t#e D;s mind even t#oug# #e #ave suppressed it o *tep#enson 1979

M/ applied to e(ery A/ 't should be understood that legal principle re1uires mens rea to e+tend to every single aspect o t#e actus reus. This means that the prosecution must pro(e not merely that D intended damage to property !or rec.lessness" but more specifically that they also intended (or %ere rec$less) to damage property !elonging to anot#er. 't is an answer to the charge, therefore, that D belie(ed they were damaging their own property. 'n $mith 71#$<8, a tenant was ound not guilty of damaging wiring in the apartment he was renting. <e #ad installed it #imsel and this had led him to !elieve it !elonged to #im not t#e lessor