Criminal Law (Damage to Property) - Essay Example

?Criminal Law According to the English Criminal Law, it is a punishable offence for a person to cause damage to property (Molan, 2005). The Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides for guidelines that would show that a person committed an offence related to property damage. This act defines property as anything that is tangible regardless of whether it is real or personal. Anything from money to domesticate wild creatures which are in the possession of a human being is considered property. The act further states that property belongs to any person who has control or custody or charge over it. It can also belong to a person who has proprietary right or interest in it (Molan, 2001). Section 1 (1)A of the legislation states that a person is guilty of an offence if , without lawful excuse, he “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” (National Archives, 2011). The seriousness of the offence can vary from such instances as destruction by fire which can cause large scale damage to other minor damages which need only small replacement costs. The Criminal Damage Act of 1971 did away with the common law and other statutory offences related to arson. It replaced the Malicious Damage Act 1861 and is the primary source for damage to property offences. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 has three different types of criminal damage offences: simple criminal damage which is covered under section 1(1), aggravated criminal damage under section 1(2) and Criminal damage by arson under section 1(3) (Crown Prosecution Services, 2011). This Act does not define what damage is or what may be assumed to be damage under certain circumstances, which has led to courts construing the term freely. The Act also does not limit damage to large scale life threatening destruction of property, small acts like smearing mud in a police cell’s walls is also considered a criminal offence under this law. The maximum punishment for an aggravated and arson criminal damage is life imprisonment. All other offences covered under this act attract a maximum penalty of ten years (Allen, 2007). Horace’s Liability In the first case scenario, Horace knowingly tinkers with the shop’s lock so that it may temporarily refuse to open. He causes this damage with the intent of making it possible for his boss to attend the Tennis Finals at Wimbledon. However, Horace’s well intentioned act is not appreciated by his boss who would rather open his shop than attend the match. He (the owner) is forced to close shop the whole day since he cannot secure a new part for the lock. According to the law, what Horace has committed is a simple criminal damage. S.1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 states that an individual is guilty of a criminal damage offence if he or she recklessly or intentionally destroys or damages property that belongs to another without any lawful excuse. Horace causes temporary damage to the shop’s lock so that it can stay closed on the day of the tennis finals at Wimbledon. He has committed an offence by knowingly damaging property that dos not belong to him (Ashworth, 1991). However, Horace did believe that he was doing his boss a favour by tinkering with the padlock. His action may have a lawful excuse since he believed that his boss’s attending to the shop was just as important as attending the tennis finals at Wimbledon. Under section 5 part 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, a lawful excuse may exist if at the time of the damaging act the person accused of the offence “believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances” (Crown Prosecution Services, 2011). Part b of the same subsection allows for lawful excuse if the accused party caused damage or destruction to property so as to protect property or an interest in property, and at the time believed that the property or interest in question “was in immediate need of protection; and the methods of protection applied “would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances” (National Archives, 2011). This section in the act also upholds that it does not matter whether a belief is justified or not; the only thing that matters is that the belief is honestly held (Allen, 2007). Horace clearly empathizes with his boss who is also the shop’s owner. He messes up with the lock so that he can get his boss to attend the tennis match for which he (the boss) had already bought tickets. Horace may have believed that his actions were for the greater good. Horace believes that the happiness of his boss is important and therefore, to him, causing damage to the lock is reasonable enough if it will make his boss attend the match. Furthermore, the damage caused on the lock is minimal and temporary, which means that it can be fixed quickly. Under these circumstances, the reasons that Horace had for tinkering with the lock in someone else’s property may be considered to be a lawful reason (Jefferson, 2007). Horace truly believed that he was helping his boss. This belief can be justified by the fact that Horace had overheard his boss complaining that he would have to miss the tennis match because of his work. If the belief cannot be justified, the lawful reason would still be relevant since Horace sincerely believed his actions were meant for a good cause. Case Law: Jaggard v Dickinson (1980) QBD– Criminal damage: mistake – lawful authority. D broke into someone’s house while she was drunk. At the time she was breaking in, she thought that the house belonged to her friend who would have consented to D entering her house the way she did. D argued that she had a lawful excuse since she believed that she was entering her friend’s house. It was held that the defendant was not guilty on the basis that she had an honest belief, even if this belief was held in a drunken state (Crown Prosecution Services, 2011). In the second case scenario, Horace gets angry when he is told to keep quiet inside a public library. He decides to play a prank which causes damage by loosening the screws of a large bookcase that is situated right behind the library assistant who told him to be quiet. Although he knows that what he has done might actually lead to a serious accident, he does not do anything to correct the situation. Fortunately, another person in the library sees the unscrewed shelf and it is repaired. What Horace has committed in this case is aggravated criminal damage. Under section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, a person is guilty of an aggravated criminal damage offence if he, without lawful excuse “destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another- (a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged ; and (b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered” (Crown Prosecution Services, 2011). The Actus Reus of such an aggravated criminal damage is: Damage or destroy Property Belonging to himself/herself or another Endangering life It is clear that Horace has no lawful excuse to cause the damage that he did. In fact he did it with malice intent, which was to get back at the library assistant who had earlier reprimanded him. The library is public property; therefore any damage caused to it can be tried under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (Ashworth, 1991). Horace knows all too well that is endangering the lives of the people in the library by loosening the shelf’s screws, but he does not do anything to correct the damage that he has already caused. According to the law, Horace can be tried and sentenced for causing damage to public property and thereby putting the lives of other people in danger without any lawful excuse. He may be fined an amount not exceeding 5000 pounds or he may be sentenced to up to ten years in prison for his offence (Jefferson, 2007). Case Law: Roper v Knott (1898) QBD: criminal Damage: damage or destroy D put 3 pints of water into 4 gallons of milk. The value of the milk went down by 10s 8d. the court held that the damage does not necessarily have to render the property in question completely useless. If the property’s value is tampered with, then this is regarded as damage. D was found guilty of deliberately intending to cause damage (Crown Prosecution Services, 2011). References Allen, M.J. 2007. Textbook on Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ashworth, A. 1991. Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Crown Prosecution Services. 2011. Criminal Damage. Accessed 14 August, 2011: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/criminal_damage/#a11 Jefferson, M. 2007. Criminal Law. London: Pearson/Longman. Molan, M.T. 2001. Sourcebook on Criminal Law. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited. Molan, M.T. 2005. Cases and Materials on Criminal Law. London: Cavendish Publishing. National Archives. 2011. Criminal Damage Act 1971. Accessed 14 August, 2011: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/pdfs/ukpga_19710048_en.pdf Read More