Page 1 of 3
SIMPLE CRIMINAL DAMAGE
1. S1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971: 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
2. sentence - S4 CDA 1971: maximum 10 years imprisonment
3. ACTUS REUS
- Miller (1983): can be by act or omission
a) destroy
- e.g.: demolishing a building, killing an animal
- total destruction
b) damage
- must be more than de minimis
- Roe v Kingerlee (1986): “[w]hat constitutes criminal damage is a matter of fact and
degree and it is for the [triers of fact], applying their common sense, to decide whether
what occurred was damage or not”
- Samuel v Stubbs (1972): “It seems to me that it is difficult to lay down very general and,
at the same time precise and absolute rules as to what constitutes ‘damage’. One must
be guided in a great degree by the circumstances of each case, the nature of the article
and the mode in which it is affected or treated”
- Morphitis v Salmon (1990):
- damage is established if D causes temporary or permanent impairment to the object
- D dismantled the pieces of a barrier used in a road block à this constitutes damage
as the usefulness of the barrier is impaired
- One of the metal pieces was scratched à this did not constitute damage as it did
not reduce its usefulness or value
- Fisher (1865): D damaged a steam engine when he plugged the feed pipe, rendering it
temporarily unusable
- Drake (1994):
- Placing a wheel clamp on the car did not constitute damage
- “there must be something which as a matter of ordinary language is capable of
being described as ‘damage’ … Removing part of an object so that the object as a
whole will not work as intended may amount to damage … there must be some
intrusion into … the integrity of the object in question. There was no such intrusion
here. There was nothing which, as matter of ordinary language, could sensibly be
regarded as damage to the car.
- Fiak (2005):
- D stuffed a blanket down the toilet in a cell
- Flushed the toilet repeatedly causing the flooding of the cell
- Water was clean and the floor was waterproof
- The floor and blanket were rendered temporarily unusable
- Although the floor was waterproof and the water was clean, the suggestion that it is
not damage is incomprehensible
- Roper v Knott (1898): adding water to beer to constitutes damage to the beer as its value
decreases
- Hardman v CC of Avon & Somerset Constabulary (1986):
- D painted silhouettes on the pavement with water soluble paint, which would
eventually be washed away in the rain
- It constituted damage
Page 2 of 3
- Expenses were incurred in removing the paint with high pressure water jets
- Henderson & Batley (1984): land was damaged when a lorry dumped rubble on a
development site, as it required an expense to clean up
c) property
- S10(1)(a) CDA 1971: ‘property’ means of tangible nature, whether real or personal,
including money and – Including wild creatures which have been tamed or are ordinarily
kept in captivity, and any other wild creatures or their carcases it, but only if, they have
been reduced into possession which has not been lost or abandoned or are in the course
of being reduced into possession;
- S10(1)(b) CDA 1971: Not including mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers, fruit
or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land
d) belonging to another
- S10(2)(a) CDA 1971: having custody or control over it
- S10(2)(b) CDA 1971: having any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable
interest arising only from an arrangement to transfer or grant an interest)
- S10(2)(c) CDA 1971: having a charge over it
4. MENS REA
a) intention to cause that damage or destruction
b) recklessness as to that damage or destruction
- R v G (2003): D is aware that the damage / destruction will occur
5. LAWFUL EXCUSE
- s5(2)(a) CDA 1971: D believed that the person he believed to be entitled to consent would have
consented if they had known of the destruction or damage
- Jaggard v Dickinson (1980): D broke into the neighbour’s house, believing it to be his – not liable
- Blake (1993): D was liable for drawing graffiti, although he believed that he had God’s consent
to do so
- Denton (1982):
- The owner of a building instructed D to set fire to his building, to perpetrate insurance
fraud
- D was not liable
- s5(2)(b)(i),(ii) CDA 1971: there was an immediate need to protect property belonging to himself
or another and the means of protection were reasonable in the circumstances
- Chamberlain v Lindon (1998): D destroyed a wall that was obstructing his right of way – not
liable
- Lloyd v DPP (1992):
- D parked his car in a private car park
- There were clear signs stating that unauthorised persons could not park there
- D’s car was clamped – a large yellow sticker was affixed to the windscreen alerting the
driver that the car had been clamped
- D refused to pay the £25 levy to remove the clamp
- D returned later to cut off the padlocks on the clamp
- D argued that he had a lawful excuse to cut off the padlock as the clamping of his car
amounted to a trespass
- “… as a general rule, if a motorist parks his car without permission on another person's
property knowing that by doing so he runs the risk of it being clamped, he has no right to
damage or destroy the clamp. If he does so he will be guilty of a criminal offence.”
Page 3 of 3
AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE
1. S1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971: A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any
property, whether belonging to himself or another – Intending to destroy or damage any property or
being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and Intending by the
destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of
another would thereby be endangered
2. sentence - S4: maximum life imprisonment
3. ACTUS REUS
a) destroy or damage
b) property
c) belonging to himself or another
4. MENS REA
a) in relation to the property damage or destruction
i. intention to destroy / damage property OR
ii. recklessness as to the damage / destruction of property
b) in relation to the endangering of the life of another
i. intention by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another OR
- Steer:
- D fired a gun at the door and window of V’s home
- V was not injured
- Q: Did D intend to endanger the life of V by the damage to the property?
- NO
- The endangerment to the life of V came from the gun, not the damaged door /
window
ii. recklessness as to the endangering of the life of another by the destruction or damage
