Altun63
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Hello,

Has anyone got any criticism/ reform notes on:

Criminal Damage Act 1971 ?










Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Mimir
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by Altun63)
Hello,

Has anyone got any criticism/ reform notes on:

Criminal Damage Act 1971 ?

Posted from TSR Mobile
What exactly do you need to know, and which sections? Your post title suggests you're in Year 9 - the TSR Resources area has Crime notes, but they may be slightly too complex.
0
reply
Altun63
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Mimir)
What exactly do you need to know, and which sections? Your post title suggests you're in Year 9 - the TSR Resources area has Crime notes, but they may be slightly too complex.
Property crime is the heading which criminal damage falls under in our assignment . We're evaluating most aspects of property crime, theft, robbery, burglary and criminal damage (fraud not required). For criminal damage we need to assess weather the current law is working or if there are any loop holes.

I have had a look at the resources and couldn't find criminal damage.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Altun63
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#4
Damnn its not showing up on my phone which year its in. How do I change this ?



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Mimir
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Altun63)
Damnn its not showing up on my phone which year its in. How do I change this ?



Posted from TSR Mobile
Dunno. Sometimes the Mods do it themselves. I'll presume A-Level to Undergraduate level. These are not comprehensive notes, but should give you a good start, off the top of my head:

Criminal Damage is a statutory offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
s1(1) - Simple Criminal Damage
s1(2) - Aggravated Criminal Damage; Aggravated Arson
ss1(1) and (3) - Arson

s2 - Making threats to destroy or damage property
s3 - Possession with intent to destroy or damage property

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.

Case Law you might find useful for evaluating the Act

"Destroy or damage" is not defined in the statute. Use the case of Samuels v Stubbs - whether or not something is damaged is a matter of degree. It is a question of fact that the court itself will consider. There is no general rule.

In A(a juvenile) v R a youth spat on a policeman's coat. This was considered assault, but not criminal damage because the act of the accused did not mean that the victim had to spend any money to make the 'damage' good.

In Hardman v CC Avon and Somerset it was held that the damage doesn't have to be permanent, but it must damage so that action needs to be taken to make the property good.

Roe v Kingerlee An inmate smerared poo over the inside of his cell. This was held to be criminal damage even though the faeces could be removed.

IE: There is no hard and fast rule on 'destroy or damage' it is a question of fact and degree.

In Morphitas v Salmon it was held that 'damage' is not only permanent or temporary physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness.

IE: A mere decrease of value will constitute criminal damage.

For the Mens Rea:

RvG to test for recklessness.

For the Mens rea to be made out, the defendent must know that the property belongs to another or realise that it might; he must intend to damage or destroy the property; or realise that his actions might result in such damage or destruction; and in the circumstances, the risk of damage to property must be an unreasonable one to take.

The defence of lawful excuse (s5(3) CDA) or belief in consent of the victim to damage of his property (s5(3) CDA) can be raised.


Is all this too much detail? Of course theft, RBB need different statutory references.
0
reply
Altun63
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Mimir)
Dunno. Sometimes the Mods do it themselves. I'll presume A-Level to Undergraduate level. These are not comprehensive notes, but should give you a good start, off the top of my head:

Criminal Damage is a statutory offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
s1(1) - Simple Criminal Damage
s1(2) - Aggravated Criminal Damage; Aggravated Arson
ss1(1) and (3) - Arson

s2 - Making threats to destroy or damage property
s3 - Possession with intent to destroy or damage property

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.

Case Law you might find useful for evaluating the Act

"Destroy or damage" is not defined in the statute. Use the case of Samuels v Stubbs - whether or not something is damaged is a matter of degree. It is a question of fact that the court itself will consider. There is no general rule.

In A(a juvenile) v R a youth spat on a policeman's coat. This was considered assault, but not criminal damage because the act of the accused did not mean that the victim had to spend any money to make the 'damage' good.

In Hardman v CC Avon and Somerset it was held that the damage doesn't have to be permanent, but it must damage so that action needs to be taken to make the property good.

Roe v Kingerlee An inmate smerared poo over the inside of his cell. This was held to be criminal damage even though the faeces could be removed.

IE: There is no hard and fast rule on 'destroy or damage' it is a question of fact and degree.

In Morphitas v Salmon it was held that 'damage' is not only permanent or temporary physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness.

IE: A mere decrease of value will constitute criminal damage.

For the Mens Rea:

RvG to test for recklessness.

For the Mens rea to be made out, the defendent must know that the property belongs to another or realise that it might; he must intend to damage or destroy the property; or realise that his actions might result in such damage or destruction; and in the circumstances, the risk of damage to property must be an unreasonable one to take.

The defence of lawful excuse (s5(3) CDA) or belief in consent of the victim to damage of his property (s5(3) CDA) can be raised.


Is all this too much detail? Of course theft, RBB need different statutory references.
This is all great thank you, just what I needed.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Sheffield Hallam University
    Get into Teaching in South Yorkshire Undergraduate
    Wed, 26 Feb '20
  • The University of Law
    Solicitor Series: Assessing Trainee Skills – LPC, GDL and MA Law - London Moorgate campus Postgraduate
    Wed, 26 Feb '20
  • University of East Anglia
    PGCE Open day Postgraduate
    Sat, 29 Feb '20

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (534)
66.42%
No (270)
33.58%

Watched Threads

View All