The Criminal Damage Act 1971 - Case Study Example

Case Study Number Case study Introduction In English law, bringing on criminal harm as well as damage was initially a typical law offense. The offense was generally concerned with the security of abodes and the nourishment supply, and few approvals were forced for harming individual property. Obligation was initially limited to the installment of harms by method for recompense. As time passed, particular laws were acquainted with arrangement with specific circumstances as they were judged to oblige intercession, most especially close by the ascent of automation and urbanization throughout the Industrial Revolution. The advanced law of criminal harm is for the most part held in the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which reclassifies or makes a few offenses securing property rights. The Act gives an exhaustive structure coating only preparatory acts to the most genuine offenses of illegal conflagration and creating harm with expectation to imperil life. Accordingly, disciplines fluctuate from a settled punishment to life detainment, and the court may request installment of recompense to an exploited person (Barbara & Marston, 2009). Offence Reflecting on the offence as per the prosecution of Adam Clewes, we learn that he has been involved in two counts involving breaking a window at Bargain Booze, High Street, Leigh, and possession of a knife. According to the report from the constable, during the time of arrest and arrest, no one else was present during the interview. Clewes accepted the first count regarding breaking of a window denied and suggested that it was by accident and the second count in regards to possession of a knife. Legal elements From the case study involving the case of Adam Clewes and W.H. Smiths and Cheap Booze, there are two individuals counts that comes into the attention and that requires to be dealt with differently. In consideration of the England law the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (the Act) revoked the normal law and statutory offenses of arson. Just a couple of the offenses in opposition to the Malicious Damage Act 1861 remain. The Act is presently the essential wellspring of offenses of harm to property. The common law for the most part treated harm to an alternates belongings as a civil matter heading just to a right to harms in trespass or aggravation. In the eighteenth century, Blackstone expressed the privileges of individual property in ownership are at risk to two types of wounds: carrying away or hardship of that ownership; and the misuse or harm of the assets, while the ownership proceeds in the lawful manager." Blackstone unmistakably named these as "Private Wrongs" in his editorials, accentuating that property rights were authorized entomb partes, and that the State was not so much one of the included gatherings. Truth be told, the criminal law just mediated because of arson, characterizing it as "the pernicious and willful blazing of the house or latrines of an alternate man.” This insurance reached out to stables and even "stacks of corn.” Fire related crime customarily pulled in capital punishment, and had done so in Roman law. Property is characterized in area 10 of the Act and is more extensive than the Theft Act definition in that it incorporates land. Hence land might be harmed; for instance, by dumping chemicals on it. Property does not however incorporate intangibles or things in activity. Area 10(2) of the Act is especially critical when considering to whom property has a place. A manager can harm his or her own particular property if, in the meantime, it fits in with another person inside the importance of the segment. For instance, if an individual sets blaze to his own particular house, which is liable to a home loan, he can even now be charged under Section 1(1) and (3) as the mortgagor will have a restrictive right or enthusiasm toward the property. Area 5 of the Act gives cases of movements that would constitute a legitimate reason and in this way a safeguard to criminal harm charges, however not to disturbed criminal harm under Section 1(2). You must be mindful of these, especially in connection to the safeguards liable to be raised by drivers harming wheel clips (William, 1765–1769). An Act to modify the law of England and Wales as to offenses of harm to property and to annulment or correct as regards the United Kingdom certain authorizations identifying with such offenses; and for associated purposes. However, “An individual who without legitimate reason wrecks or harms any property having a place with an alternate planning to wreck or harm any such property or being careless in the matter of whether any such property would be pulverized or harmed should be blameworthy of an offense (Bloy & Denis & Philip, 2000).” To start with, there are three distinctive statements from Jason Edwards who is an electrician, Ryan Edwards who lives in a flat above the shops in High Street, Leigh the opposite side of the road including Cheap Booze and W.H.Smiths and Michael Kennett Store Manager along with the first count that Adam Clewes is facing. As reported from the Jason Edwards, an electrician, he lives in a flat above one the shops in High Street, Leigh. From his bedroom window he was able to see the shop frontages on the opposite side of the road, which is the side where W.H. Smiths and Cheap Booze exists. At about 11.40pm on Sunday 4th May 2014, Edwards went to bed and as he was just going off to sleep, he heard voices and a thudding noise from the street below. This continued for about five minutes and was annoying, prompting him to get out of bed and have a look through the window. As he looked out of his window, he saw two males in the street below, one of whom was dribbling a football along the white lines in the centre of the road. He recognised this male as Adam Clewes but he was unable to recognize the other person. He heard the other person shouting to Clewes to just-leave it or he will break something. As he watched them for a few minutes, Clewes kicked the ball a number of times bouncing it off the shop windows which he was concerned would break the windows. After a few more minutes, Edwards heard Clewes shouting It is a penalty and saw him run at the ball and kick it really hard towards the shops shouting Goal! as he did so. Edwards saw the ball hit the window of Bargain Booze, which smashed and heard the sound of breaking glass. Edwards heard the second male saying “I told you, you would break something you idiot”, Clewes shouted back, Then Clawes was heard saying “I did not mean to break it; I was aiming at the wall.” Edwards do not know Clewes personally but know him from the locality, as his son Ryan told him his name. The other respondent was Ryan Edwards who lives at the address provided to the police, which is a flat above the shops in High Street, Leigh. His bedroom overlooks the shops on the opposite side of the road including Cheap Booze and W.H.Smiths. As reported he went to bed at 11pm on Sunday 4th May 2014. About an hour later, he was awoken by the sound of someone shouting. He immediately sat up, looked out of his bedroom window, and saw a boy he recognized as Adam Clewes standing in the middle of the road. He then shouted penalty, ran, and kicked a football towards the shops on the opposite side of the road. He immediately shouted goal! as the ball hit the front window of Cheap Booze, which smashed. Ryan then heard someone saying to Adam Clewes “I told you would break something you idiot. Ryan heard Clewes shouting back, “I did not mean to break it; I was aiming at the wall.” Ryan only knows Clewes from being a student in the same year as him at school, and he does not know him personally. The third correspondent was Michael Kennett, a Store Manager of the Bargain Booze off-license in High Street, Leigh. He has been the Manager there for approximately 2 years. He left the store at about 4.30pm yesterday, Sunday 4th May 2014. He was the last person to leave the building and everything was in order. At around 12.45am the following morning, Monday 5th May, he received a phone call from Eastshire Police to say that the front window of the shop had been damaged and could he attend the shop and arrange for it to be secured. He arrived at the shop at 01.05am and immediately saw that the large display window to the left of the door was shattered and there were glass shards on the footpath and inside the shop. The window had not gone right through because it is laminated glass. The window is approximately 2.5 metres wide x 2 metres tall. He then arranged for a boarding up company to attend and they secured the front of the shop. He estimated the cost of the window to be approximately £500 to replace. Nothing appears to be missing from inside the shop. According to the report from the PC Brown acted lawfully in exercising the arrest and search of Adam Clewes keeping in mind that already the police post had already received the evidence and even taken some pictures where burglary had happened. From this point of view Clewes must be completely mindful of the procurements of Section 22 and Schedule 2 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (MCA) which manage the determination of mode of trial for the Scheduled offenses. Where an individual is accused of an offense in opposition to area 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 or with helping, abetting, guiding or acquiring such an offense, or with endeavoring to carry out, or affecting , such an offense, and the quality included is short of what £500 , he must be attempted summarily. In addition, Adam Clewes has been involved in similar offences as follows: 20/07/2013 whilst in drink Clewes had kicked a shop window, destroying the same. Damage valued at £800. 10/02/2013 during the early hours caused a disturbance shouting and swearing at members of the public, became abusive when spoken to by a constable and was arrested. This is an indication and admissibility of this bad character evidence at court trial. Whether devastation or harm has happened is an issue of actuality and degree in each one case and case law proposes that harm must be more than de minimis. In consideration of the second count of possessing the knife, the law also takes into cause although with minimum influence. The law states that, under section 3 an individual who has anything in his authority or under his control planning without legitimate reason to utilize it or cause or license an alternate to utilize it: to pulverize or harm any property having a place with some other individual; or to wreck or harm his own particular or the clients property in a manner which he knows is liable to jeopardize the life of some other individual; should be blameworthy of an offense (Mackay& Bruffell, 2010.). However, there is no evidence as whether he was in possession of knife as it is indicated the PCB Neil Brown interviewed him alone without any correspondent. Conclusion In conclusion, Adam Clewes is quality of the first count involving breaking a window at Bargain Booze, High Street, Leigh. The reason is that the case has three distinctive entity respondents. First, we have two witnesses both Mr Ryan and Jason Edwards. In addition, the manager of Bargain Booze mr. Michale Kennett ascertained that he left the window intact and that he articulated that dmages has been done. Despite of Clewes being interviewed in absence of any PCB, the witnesses gives the court the assurance of proceeding with the trial and give verdict whatsoever. More so, evidence from CCTV camera along High Street, Leigh gives a court a clear indication that the offender is eligible to attend the open court. When Clewes was arrested his representation was exactly as the two witnesses described him. He was drunk too and whilst to the previous offences, the court found that 20/07/2013 whilst in drink Clewes had kicked a shop window, destroying the same. Damage valued at £800. 10/02/2013 during the early hours caused a disturbance shouting and swearing at members of the public, became abusive when spoken to by a constable and was arrested. This indicates that Clewes has to face the trial since it is a clarification of bad character that leads to abusive and admissibility. In addition, he even admitted that he was responsible for the damages although he did not do it intentionally. However, the second count which is Clewes being in possession of a knife is merely eminent case with the fact that there is no evidence attached to this apart from the knife itself. It is easy for Clewes to claim that the he has no whereabouts on the existence of the knife. Bibliography Barclay, L. (2011).UK Law and Your Rights For Dummies [Kindle Edition]. Wales: For Dummies. Barbara, H. & Marston, J. (2009).Cases and Commentary on Tort [Print Replica] [Kindle Edition]. England: OUP Oxford. Bloy, D., Denis L., Philip, P. (2000). Principles of Criminal Law [Paperback]. Washington DC: Routledge-Cavendish. Carey, P. (2009). Data Protection: A Practical Guide to UK and EU Law [Paperback]. New York: Oxford University Press. Heaton, R. (2001).Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (3rd ed.), London: Blackstone Press, ISBN 1-84174-272-4 Karly W. (2004). Law, "Terror", and the Frame-Breaking Act, Economic History Society, retrieved 2008-06-01 Mackay, J. & Bruffell, M. (2010).Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases (JSB Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases) [Paperback]. New York: Oxford University Press. Tony S., & Alan, L.(2004). Criminal Law (3rd ed.), Cullompton, Devon: Willan, p. 204, ISBN 1-84392-100-6. William, B. (1765–1769), "Of Offenses against the Habitations of Individuals [Book the Fourth, Chapter the Sixteenth]", Commentaries on the Laws of England, Oxford: Clarendon Press (reproduced on The Avalon Project at Yale Law School), retrieved 2008-06-01. Read More