Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hey there guys can someone example to me what's a specific intent is? I have heard it applied
    To the ulterior
    Offences under s91a and s91b in relation to the ulterior offences.

    However s91a has a ulterior offence of unlawful damage -'which is criminal
    Damage - I needed to know whether this is referring to simple criminal damage or aggravated criminal damage? Or both.

    Howver, criminal damage is one of a basic intent crime as a lower mens rea will suffice for recklessness - r v Cunningham or RVG&R. So how is s91a stating that the ulterior offence must be that of a specific intent when simple and aggravated criminal damage under the act is one of basic intent?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Highfiveyou)
    Hey there guys can someone example to me what's a specific intent is? I have heard it applied
    To the ulterior
    Offences under s91a and s91b in relation to the ulterior offences.

    However s91a has a ulterior offence of unlawful damage -'which is criminal
    Damage - I needed to know whether this is referring to simple criminal damage or aggravated criminal damage? Or both.

    Howver, criminal damage is one of a basic intent crime as a lower mens rea will suffice for recklessness - r v Cunningham or RVG&R. So how is s91a stating that the ulterior offence must be that of a specific intent when simple and aggravated criminal damage under the act is one of basic intent?
    I thought I'd already answered both of these.

    (i) Any damage which is unlawful (criminal damage, aggravated criminal damage, arson, aggravated arson are all within the scope of the offence).

    (ii) You need to intend to commit unlawful damage to commit an offence under s 9(1)(a). Being reckless as to whether some damage is caused is not enough. It is irrelevant that you can *commit* an offence of criminal damage without intending to commit criminal damage (i.e. by being reckless and causing damage to property), since s 9(1)(a) expressly says that you have to intend the offence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I really don't understand what you just said! There is no intention to comitt criminal damage, as it only requires recklessness. Can you give me an example? The normal requirement for criminals Mage as an ulterior offence is recklessness - so will that sufficient?
    If I say "D knew that extent or the risk yet took it anyway" (r v Cunningham)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm talking about a specific intention that is what is required right? Under burglary? But then I look at the me rea for aggravated criminal damage/ simple criminal damage and recklessness suffices which is basic intent
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, I just can't see any clearer way of explaining it than I have already.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I just don't understand. How can I say intention when the test set is recklessness?
    For exampl if I state the D had intention or was reckless to the damage to the property and the endangerment of life. - then is that sufficient intention?

    This is the mens rea for aggravated? I don't see any specific intention at all in here?

    Mens rea of aggravated criminal damage The defendant must; intend or be reckless as to the destroying or damaging of property andintend or be reckless as to the endangerment of life. R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 Case summary
    And this is the recklessness for simple criminal damage:

    R v G & R [2003] 3 WLR Case summary The appropriate test of recklessness for criminal damage is:"A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to - (i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; (ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk."


    I don't see any specific intention here either apart from recklessness like aggravated criminal damage
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Highfiveyou)
    I just don't understand. How can I say intention when the test set is recklessness?
    You can commit criminal damage intentionally or recklessly. No one is disputing that.

    You cannot commit a s 9(1)(a) offence recklessly because the section expressly states: "and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection 2".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can I ask where
    You are getting your information from? I will like to
    Read it myself maybe I'll get a better interpretation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Highfiveyou)
    Can I ask where
    You are getting your information from? I will like to
    Read it myself maybe I'll get a better interpretation.
    I'm getting it from the words of s 9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968. But you can read *any* textbook on criminal law if you learn better that way. Doesn't need to be something detailed like Smith & Hogan - whatever textbook your lecturer set will be fine.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Okay thAt explains it. It may just been intention meaning the intention required for the ulterior offence. So when I state that the D had intention to do the ulterior offence although this was conditional, if it did not occur. Then I can state he intended it , and was reckless as to his actions damaging it destroying the property. I think after that we can state that he has intention, as the intention under the ulterior offence has been successful!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You've somehow brought recklessness in again when the words of the section say "intend".

    If D trespasses on a property, is aware of a risk that his trespassing will damage the property, and that risk is unreasonable, then D does not commit a s 9(1)(a) offence because he does not intend to do unlawful damage to property.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can I write you an example?
    Say D had a fight with his employer and planned to go to his house with some paint to vandalise his furniture, but when he went he was disturbed and ran back out if the house.
    S91a
    AR - D entered : he did
    building or part if a building: yes he did
    As a trespasser: which he did
    mR : knows it is reckless that he/she is a trespasser
    Intent to steal or inflicts GBH or do an lawful damage therein s9(2)
    He has intention to do simple crimjnak damage
    As he intents or is reckless as to damage and destroy property belonging to another.


    Can I ask whether you have studied this subject before?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Highfiveyou)
    Can I write you an example?
    Say D had a fight with his employer and planned to go to his house with some paint to vandalise his furniture, but when he went he was disturbed and ran back out if the house.
    S91a
    AR - D entered : he did
    building or part if a building: yes he did
    As a trespasser: which he did
    mR : knows it is reckless that he/she is a trespasser
    Intent to steal or inflicts GBH or do an lawful damage therein s9(2)
    He has intention to do simple crimjnak damage
    As he intents or is reckless as to damage and destroy property belonging to another.


    Can I ask whether you have studied this subject before?
    D has intention to do criminal damage as he intends to damage (or destroy) property belonging to another. All the other elements of the offence are made out and so D commits the s 9(1)(a) offence.

    The second bold is an error. "Intends or is reckless" is not enough to commit a s 9(1)(a) offence. You have to intend the unlawful damage, as s 9(1)(a) states, not be reckless as to whether it is caused.

    But that doesn't matter in your example as D clearly intends to cause unlawful damage - see the first bolded bit - he planned to vandalise the furniture.

    I have studied criminal law (including burglary) before (just like everyone who has completed a law degree, I suppose!)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Okay I was
    Confused
    Because my lecturer stated when youstate
    Whether they had intention you
    Basically just state the mensrea already required For the ulterior Offence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've just read this from a book which states recklessness will suffice for
    Criminal damage under s91a. You are
    Looking at the act and reading it when this book simply interprets the
    Meaning



    The damage intended must be such that to cause it would amount to an offence. It might be any of the offences of causing damage created by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. In the case of every one of the offences which is likely to be invoked under this provision, the elements of the actus reus must be committed intentionally or recklessly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Okay I think I understand now
    So for s91a I don't need to specify the mens rea that is necessary for the actual ulterior offence? So saying intention is efficient? And that's it? What authority can I use to state he has intention? Is r v stean enough,
    As this case shows an intention.
    So I don't include all the elements of theft that are required like r v ghost dishonesty, and intention r v velumy. But it enough to say he has intention :
    R v stean. For GBH it's also enough to state he has intention chandler v dop or oblique intention r v woolin ( virtual certainty) .
    And for criminal damage stage he has intention chandler v dpp.

    Name:  image.jpg
Views: 67
Size:  164.3 KBSo under s91b I only state the necessary intention under the offences so for GBH I can consider s20 intention/reckless
    theft- I can state r v ghost - dishonesty
    Intention to permanently deprive - chandler V Dpp / r v velumy
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Highfiveyou)
    I've just read this from a book which states recklessness will suffice for
    Criminal damage under s91a. You are
    Looking at the act and reading it when this book simply interprets the
    Meaning

    The damage intended must be such that to cause it would amount to an offence. It might be any of the offences of causing damage created by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. In the case of every one of the offences which is likely to be invoked under this provision, the elements of the actus reus must be committed intentionally or recklessly.
    You are looking at one paragraph of a book and taking it out of context.

    Here is a quote from the same book (Smith & Hogan's Criminal Law), at p 963:

    Burglary

    26.1.2 Mens Rea

    ...

    26.1.2.2

    The Ulterior Offence

    It must be proved that D either

    (i) entered with intent to commit one of the following offences:

    (a) stealing; (b) inflicting GBH; (c) unlawful damage to the building or anything therein

    ....

    Intention must be proved; it is not sufficient that D is shown to have been reckless at the time of entry as to whether or not the ulterior offence would be committed
    If you want case authority as well then try A v DPP [2003] EWHC 1676 Admin (this is the case cited in the footnotes of the Smith and Hogan passage I have quoted above.

    8. Mr Cooper submits that there has clearly been a muddle in the justices' minds, perhaps arising from the possibility of recklessness being pertinent when considering the offence of criminal damage. The justices might have considered that burglary was provable on the basis of recklessness alone.

    13. As it seems to me, the question before the court on this occasion is not whether or not the justices had before them evidence entitling them to reach the conclusion that the offence of burglary was proved against the appellant. The crucial question is whether the reasons which they gave, in the terms of the second question posed for this court, may have given the impression of applying the wrong test for the mental element required. As it seems to me, they may very well have given the impression that they were applying the wrong test. There was, as I have said, no reference in their initial announcement to intention at all; there was a reference to recklessness. In their second announcement, had they said, “We believe it was in their minds to commit criminal damage at the point when they entered”, there could, as it seems to me, have been no room for misunderstanding. But the reference to “a degree of recklessness” which followed, in my judgment, was plainly capable of giving rise to misunderstanding as to whether or not the justices had indeed applied the right test.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Could you break it down for me like give me and example? I got
    An exam coming up and my lecturer is beyond bad at teaching. Shockingly enough this wasn't even covered during my seminar classes either
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If anyone else can help me that would be great for crimjnak damage. If someone can out an example down and then answer it
    So I can get an idea!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Help someone
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.