Zoom-CRIMINAL Law-UoL

Review Chapter 13

Criminal Damage

Activity 13.1
a. Read Wilson, Chapter 17 ‘Criminal damage’. Note down as many different examples of criminal
damage as you can find for future reference.

b. Why, in Henderson and Battley (1984), was depositing 30 lorry loads of rubble on a building site
criminal damage?
-nature of property: land use to build requires clear, flat plains to construct
-nature of alteration: dump extreme amount rubble on land that requires flat plains for construction;
changed the physical state, use and value of the field

-an offence b/c cause

-now cannot build and must clean and rid of huge loads of rubble; cost effort, time, money
i) damage building area
ii) damage budget to build in that area
iii) expense to owner
iv) loss of profit to build on schedule now that it's delayed
v) liability to owner: shareholders, trust, service, and result of business to its customers with delays and
costs
vi) dust causing discomfort, allergy, annoyance, health issues

As in: Hunter and others v London Docklands Development Corporation - 42 ConLR 53

(3) The deposition of dust on property mentioned in para 3 of the proforma individual statement of claim
was capable of constituting damage to that property. In order to recover damages for annoyance and
discomfort, a plaintiff must show that he has suffered physical damage giving rise to such annoyance and
discomfort. The deposition of dust on land in sufficient quantities to impair the usefulness of that land
constitutes damage (see p 65, post). R v Henderson & Battley, (29 November 1984, unreported), CA
considered in Cox v Riley (1986) 83 Cr App R 54 applied; Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber
& Partners  [1983] 1 All ER 65, Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd  [1963] 1 All ER 341, Church v Ministry
of Defence  (1984) Times, 7 March and Sykes v Ministry of Defence (1984) Times, 23 March considered.
c. Do you agree with the view in Smith and Hogan (2015) that wheel clamping should count as
criminal damage, contrary to the decision in Drake v DPP (1994)?
Drake

-D intoxicated and behind the driver's seat when his car was parked in public

-his wheels were locked/clamped, car couldn't drive/move

-convicted: i) alcohol intox ii) car locked by clamp is not crim damage

-CoA: allowed

b/c

i) intox in car no conviction: car was clamped, driver couldn't drive; defence allowed

ii) clamping wheels:

-nature of property= tangile wheels on car to drive;

-nature of alteration= locked/clamped to prevent car movement

-damage= none; wheel was not punctured, blasted, or cut; no value change to wheels but it does impede
its usefulness temporarily; intrusion to wheels is different from disintegration of use; no damage amounts

Therefore: not guilty to intox; not guilty to wheel criminal damage

Wheel clamp doesn't amount to damage; disagree with Hogan

-damage is when after release of clamp, that wheels are dysfunction, then this will be case by case
inference

-no damage definition covers all damages; so must dissect and analyze the damage and what they are
and how they affect the car with its owner after clamping, to award liability

-to say clamping should be crim damage is too general to be convincing

Activity 13.2
Read Wilson, Section 17.3 ‘Criminal damage endangering life’. Which of the following are not
forms of aggravated criminal damage (ACD) and why? Make sure you take notes recording your
answer. It is an important point.

Elements of ACD
i) a/r= damage property; m/r= deliberate or reckless damage to property
ii) property can belong to anyone
iii) reckless to potential risk/harm & endanger life along with property damage

a. Cutting the brake cable in a car.

-property= car; brake cable, brake cable in car
 -damage to property= cut brake cable; dysfunction (damage: nature of property= to stop a car; alteration:
car cannot stop= stops usefulness of brake and use of car; loss of value and use to owner)

-deliberate= yes; reckless= yes

-belong= anyone

-reckless to potential risk/harm= yes; endanger life= yes car is for humans to drive; a person will be
endangered driving with severed brake cable; endanger to others and others' property on the road;
negates public safety/interest

=Yes ACD

b. Exploding dynamite during office hours in a bank vault in order to gain access to a safe.
-property
= bank building and everything within it; bank vault, bank safe, money and valuables contained within
other bank cash registers and within bank safe at the time= tangible

-damage to property
= explosion, fire, breakage, burns (damage: nature of property= contain, protect and hides
money/valuable; alteration: opens contained area, exposes items inside to possible loss from hiding;
stops usefulness of vault and safe; loss of value of "containment" and values within that containment)

-deliberate= yes; reckless= yes

-belong= anyone

-reckless to potential risk/harm

= yes= risk of fire to entire building including vault/safe area; expose persons inside building risks and
harm and risks of harm; same to attached buildings or property in close proximity/ negates public
safety/interest

-Yes ACD

c. Demolishing a high wall on a public street, or felling a tree, without taking precautions to
safeguard passersby.
-Yes ACD

d. Ripping out copper electrified cables on a railway line, leaving live wires exposed.
-No ACD: if when no humans come near or it's an abandoned railway line
-Yes ACD: if when other electricians come to repair

e. Throwing a stone through a car windscreen intending to hit V, the driver.

-No ACD (intent to hit person first, not property) *need to damage property first to account for ACD of the
human after

f. Shooting a hole in the tyre of a car while it is being driven by V.

-Yes ACD (damage tire first; a thing damage; property first-- so can account for ACD; the human is
included as a side offence escalated from that aggravation/aggressive link of cause)

Am I ready to move on?

Are you ready to move on to the next chapter? You are if – without referring to the module guide or
Wilson – you can answer the following questions.
Simple criminal damage
1. State the differences and similarities between the meaning of property in the context of
criminal damage and theft.
-assume ownership in both--property tangible- appropriate
-crim damage: tangible property
another difference is the damage to land
Differences theft include intangibles while criminal damage is to the tangible only
2. State and explain when a person can be guilty of damaging their own property.
-in trust of someone else’s property
-urine sample case
-landlord: possible to damage property there’s a tenant --
3. Explain and illustrate what ‘damage’ means for the purpose of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
-damaging property without lawful excuse
Alterations to property
any alteration to the physical nature of the property
Morphitis v Salmon
-change it’s use
-eg: scaffolding use for constructions
4. State and explain the mens rea for criminal damage.
-M/R: intention to change or damage another’s property or by being reckless
Smith 1974
5. State, explain and illustrate the ‘lawful excuses’ under s.5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
-lawful excuse: demolition, save life in a fire, intent to extinguish fire (duress, necessity)
-excuses or justifying conditions which negate liability
-belief was honestly held
-Belief in the owner's consent and belief that is necessary to protect one's own property
6. Explain why a person who cuts through a neighbour’s fence in order to rescue the
neighbour’s dog from drowning in their pond has a lawful excuse to criminal damage on the
fence.
-Protection of another property....the dog
Chamberlain v Lindon
S1 CD

7. Explain why a similar person who throws his neighbour’s dog into the pond in order to
demonstrate to the neighbour how dangerous the pond is to the dog does not have a lawful
excuse to commit criminal damage on the dog.

-Reckless....must known that it would harm property and create damage

-foresight
-A warning is not a lawful excuse
Hunt
Aggravated criminal damage
1. State and explain the elements of aggravated criminal damage.
-destroy property with the intention to endanger life
-It's core application is cases of dangerous arson
A-G Ref No.50 of 2005

2. Give three examples of how the offence can be committed other than by arson.
-rock hit window with intent to harm person
-cut car brake cable
-shoot tire of car while in motion
-barricade in front of car while in motion

3. State the doctrinal distinctions between simple and aggravated criminal damage.
-property contrast to property and life damage
Simple - damage to property while aggravated is against the property and person
4. Explain why it is not necessary in relation to aggravated criminal damage for the property
damaged to belong to another.
-meant to protect life from danger; from threats to life-- protect from harm
5. Explain why, in Steer (1987) (Wilson 17.3.B ‘Mens rea’), a person who shot a gun through a
closed window of a room hoping to endanger the life of the people in the room was not guilty
of aggravated criminal damage.

-Steer principle - danger of life must come by way of the actual damage and not incidental

-it was the shooting which was calculated to endanger life..

-assault and simple criminal damage (not aggravated damage)