Criminal damage as defined in Criminal Damage Act 1971 — practice questions

1. Identify Offence: The potential offence is basic criminal damage under s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971.

2. Actus Reus:

• Destroy or damage: Kai scratched the car. A deep scratch impairs the car's value and requires expense to repair, so it constitutes damage (Morphitis v Salmon).
• Property: A car is tangible personal property under s.10(1).
• Belonging to another: The car belongs to the flatmate, satisfying s.10(2).

3. Mens Rea:

• Kai intended to scratch the car. The act of using a key to make a scratch demonstrates direct intent to cause damage, satisfying the mens rea for s.1(1).

4. Lawful Excuse:

• Kai may try to rely on the s.5(2)(a) defence, claiming he believed the owner would have consented. The belief must be honestly held (Jaggard v Dickinson). However, a jury is unlikely to find this belief honest given he acted during an argument. It is not a reasonable belief that someone would consent to their car being damaged out of anger.

5. Conclusion: Kai has committed the actus reus and has the mens rea for basic criminal damage. His defence of believed consent is very weak. He is likely to be found guilty of criminal damage under s.1(1).

1. Offence Identification: Ben may be liable for basic criminal damage under s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971.

2. Actus Reus Analysis:

• Destroy or Damage: Smashing laptops with a fire extinguisher clearly constitutes damage, impairing their value and usefulness (Morphitis v Salmon).
• Property: The laptops are tangible personal property under s.10(1).
• Belonging to Another: The laptops are company property, belonging to his employer, which satisfies s.10(2).

3. Mens Rea Analysis:

• Ben acted 'furiously' and deliberately smashed the laptops. This demonstrates a direct intent to cause the damage.

4. Lawful Excuse:

• No lawful excuse under s.5 applies. He did not believe he had consent (s.5(2)(a)) nor was he acting to protect other property (s.5(2)(b)).

5. Mode of Trial Calculation:

• The mode of trial for criminal damage is determined by the value of the damage, as per s.22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
• Calculation: The value of the damage must be quantified.
  • Value per laptop = £1,200
  • Number of laptops damaged = 5
  • Total Damage Value = 5 x £1,200 = £6,000
• Legal Rule: If the value of the damage is less than £5,000, the offence is treated as 'summary only' and must be tried in the Magistrates' Court.
• Application: Since the total damage of £6,000 is above the £5,000 threshold, the offence is 'triable either way'. This means Ben can choose to be tried in the Magistrates' Court or elect for trial by jury in the Crown Court.

6. Conclusion: Ben is liable for basic criminal damage under s.1(1). As the value of the damage exceeds £5,000, the offence is triable either way. The maximum sentence upon conviction in the Crown Court is 10 years' imprisonment.