Criminal law problem question - Essay Example

1Simple criminal damage finds a person guilty of criminal damage if they recklessly destroy or damage property belonging to another person. In order to prove a defendant liable to simple criminal damage the following elements have to be proved: Proving the mens rea in this case would be simple as the events that led to the destruction of $6,000 worth of property were triggered with Archie catapulting the stone. As set out in Roper v Knott 2any diminution in value of property due to a person’s act other than the owner is considered criminal damage.

The prosecution in this cases would have the most difficult in proving the mens rea. The prosecution would be burdened with proving that Archie had the intention to destroy the garage or he acted recklessly leading to the damage in the garage. It is clear from the facts of the case Archie’s actions were not intended at causing the damage. Therefore, the prosecution would have to prove Archie acted recklessly in hitting the bus with the stone. In R v G & R recklessness can be proved; if Archie was aware of the risk of the stone hitting a vehicle on the road adjacent to the park existed3.

Secondly, if he was under circumstances that made it unreasonable for him to take the risk. Under the reasoning in R v G & R 4, Archie could not appreciate the risk of damage because of his age. In R v G & R it was ruled that a defendant’s age, experience and knowledge must be taken into consideration while determining if they acted recklessly5. Therefore, Archie can use his age as a defence against the charge of simple criminal damage. Therefore, the prosecution would not be successful in convincing the court, Archie is liable to any criminal offense.

In this case, Barry aims and fires his high powered air rifle with the intention of teaching his neighbour Siegfried a lesson. The previous night, Barry had not slept as Siegfried had played dubstep music the whole night. The impact of Barry’s