The Criminal Damage Act 1971 - Report Example

Sally, Tony and Egg Oil: The “Criminal Damage Act 1971” Section 1) of the “Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c.48)” s, “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.” Section 1 (3) refers specifically to arson, “An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.” The theoretical case under consideration involves arson. Initially Tony and Sally graffitied the head office of Egg Oil. Then Sally fled and Tony “stays and sets fire to newspapers on a newspaper stand outside the head office in order to draw more attention to their cause. The paper stand is close to the front porch of Egg Oils offices. The fire spreads and extensive damage is caused to the building. Daljit, a security guard on duty at Egg Oil, narrowly escapes.” The following discussion will focus on their individual criminal liability for the damages, and potential damages, that resulted from these actions. Initially, the framework of the analysis will be presented. Then, the legal issues will be outlined. The body of the discussion will focus on the specifics of the case itself and their legal implications. Of paramount importance is the fact that there were two instances of damage and destruction. The first was the act of spray painting “the following words on the front of the building in red letters about half a meter high: EGG OIL ARE ENVIROMENTAL TERRORIST (Better grammar might have improved the reception of their message and their public image!) .” Tony and Sally both participated in this act of criminal damage by graffiti. The second act involved Tony alone: “Sally runs away but Tony stays and sets fire to newspapers on a newspaper stand outside the head office in order to draw more attention to their cause.” Each of these actions must be considered separately in terms of liability. The legislation itself involves five legal issues: 1. Did Tony and Sally have a lawful excuse for their behaviour? 2. Did either of their actions cause destruction or damage? 3. Was legitimate property damaged or destroyed? 4. Did that legitimate property belong to another? 5. What was the intention of their action and was their behaviour reckless? Each of these legal issues must be considered in the context of both actions – graffiti and arson. Also, these legal issues must be considered in the context of each individuals liability. That said, some of the legal issues can be considered to be applicable to both actions and both individuals. Sally and Tony had no lawful excuse for their behaviour. In the context of the graffiti incident and the subsequent arson in no way can either Tony or Sally argue that they believed they had lawful excuse. They were protecting against no imminent danger and intended their actions to disrupt the companys operations, costing it money, in an effort “to highlight the plight of the people in the Sugoma Delta, whose property, health and land they believe is being damaged by the environmental impact of Egg Oils commercial activities in that region,” according to the case. Furthermore, legitimate property was destroyed. The Court has previously ruled that graffiti is “damage”. (Hardman v. Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [1986] Crim. L.R. 330). In terms of the arson a case might be made, depending on the exact nature of the structure (its permanence) and the operators ownership or lease/rental agreement, that the newsstand is a chattel and not real property. However, that point is moot. The “Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c.48)” applies to “any property belonging to another...” The case is also clear as to the devastating consequences of the fire: “The paper stand is close to the front porch of Egg Oils offices. The fire spreads and extensive damage is caused to the building.” Therefore, both the graffiti and the fire are clearly damage to property. Finally, that property clearly belonged to another: Namely, Egg Oil. Their actions were targeted at property of Egg Oil. Both the graffiti incident and the arson caused damage to Egg Oils property. In no way could they have presumed to have consent or a need to cause the damages. Similarly, destruction of the newsstand and any inventory was damage to property of its owner or operator as well in the arson incident. These three points of law are undeniable and would presumably be settled by consent. On the final two points, the issues cannot be explicated in as programmatic a manner. In terms of culpability for the damages culpability is not shared equally between Tony and Sally. They planned, prepared and carried out the graffiti action together. Therefore, they are both responsible for the damages associated with that incident. The same cannot be said about the arson. Sally ran away according to the case. She was not physically present at the scene when the fire was started by Tony. Therefore, she cannot possible be held responsible for the damages that resulted from the fire. Moreover, there is no evidence that she was aware of any intention on Tonys part to escalate the action to arson. Similarly, there is no evidence that arson was discussed by Tony and Sally, or that they planned and prepared for it jointly. Directly or indirectly, Sally was not involved with the arson in any way, shape or form and is consequently, not responsible for the damages that followed from the arson. A similar line of reasoning necessitates reconsideration of the fifth legal issue, that of reckless behaviour. If the graffiti action was reckless than Sally behaved recklessly. However, if only the arson was reckless, and Sally is not responsible for the arson, than her simple act of graffitiing alone cannot be deemed to have been reckless. Graffiti is a very common form of criminal damage. It is seen everywhere from rolling stock and public transit to abandoned factories and alley ways. It is a form of damage that is familiar. Further, one aspect of our familiarity is the awareness that it causes limited and predictable visual pollution, but has few other toxic effects and presents little risk of reckless injury. Graffiti can rarely be termed reckless (to the health of anyone other than possibly the graffiti artist). The same cannot be said of arson. Fire, by its very nature is unpredictable. This unpredictability is often reflected in the costs of fires. Allowed to firmly catch and resistant to attempts to extinguish them small blazes can result in damages in the millions of euros. In this case a small fire that started in a newsstand caused extensive to a neighbouring office building. That may very well never have been Tonys intention, but it is also the very reason that arson is treated as such a dangerous form of criminal damage. The description of Tonys behaviour as reckless is further affirmed by the human consequences that were only barely averted. According to the case, “Daljit, a security guard on duty at Egg Oil, narrowly escapes.” Again, a small fire started in a newsstand is so dangerous and so unpredictable that it had the potential to injure or kill a security guard in an adjacent building. Undeniably, this wanton disregard for human health and safety constitutes reckless behaviour. Regina v. G and another (Appellants) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) [2003] UKHL 50 established that a person is legally guilty of reckless behaviour if they create a circumstance or a result that is likely to pose a risk. Arson, particularly with the consequences that Tonys had, clearly constitutes reckless behaviour in the legal sense. The legal situation is best represented by a matrix. Responsible for Graffiti Responsible for Arson Reckless Behaviour Tony Yes Yes Yes Sally Yes No No Tony and Sally are both responsible for the criminal damages that were associated with the act of graffitiing the office of Egg Oil. This would certainly include the cost of removing the graffiti and could potentially include any damage to the building caused while applying the graffiti such as ladder damage to soffits and fascia, the installation of climbing gear and the presence of pitons, any locks cut or damaged to gain access, etc. That said, in this case with the building largely destroyed by a subsequent fire, the responsibility of Tony alone, it is unlikely that any damage from the graffiti action was preserved if it was even caused in the first place. Responsibility for the arson is not distribute in the same manner. For the arson Tony alone bears responsibility. Sally was not present when it occurred and did not participate in its planning. Indeed, there is no evidence that she planned anything other than the graffiti action. Her behaviour was also not reckless as she had nothing to do with the arson which alone constituted reckless behaviour under the Act. On the other hand Tony is responsible for both the graffiti and the arson actions. He also is responsible for reckless behaviour for the arson according to established precedent. Cases and Legislation Cited “Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c.48)” http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1971/cukpga_19710048_en_1. Hardman v. Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [1986] Crim. L.R. 330. Regina v. G and another (Appellants) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) [2003] UKHL 50. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/50.html. Read More