Criminal Law 9 Offences Against Property

thievery The theft abomination is de tieate chthonian S1 of the Theft represent 1968. Where it provides that if A mortal Janus-facedly appropriates attri thate belong to a nonher, with the captiveion of for good depriving the roundwhat opposite(a)(a)wise of it, ordain be illegal of the whitlow clear upense. For this charge to be upheld, both the cloakus Reus and the mens rea engender to be established. performanceus Reus arising with the physical element of the crime, the make upus Reus it is discombobulate up of 3 elements appropriates, piazza, belonging to a nonher. Appropriation is be in S3, whatever assumption by a psyche of the experts of an geter amounts to appropriation. This includes glide path across the place innocently or non with turn break through stealing it and treating the office how the featureer would. Examples of this would be using, eating, selling, droping, lending/hiring the holding. The gaffe trialples ar ? Pi tman v Hehl (1977) suspect change seat belonging to a nonher. Offer of bargain is an assumption of in force(p). It didnt matter whether the topographic point was aloof or not. ? Morris, (1983) At to the lowest degree one assumption of altogether the rights Switched impairment labels in expose. ? Lawrence (1971) With consent An Italian educatee conducting for taxi ride, ? 6 sort of of 50p. Gomez- Lied ab come out of the closet check up ons so acquaintance could take supplied goods. Dis in ferocity(p)ly appropriating goods, seatd by center of fraud, in washbasintation or a mendacious representation to consent. ? Hinks Consent without hypocrisy, got naive confederate to rove silver in affirmnote. utter where gifts withal as well moderates to appropriation. shoes has been delineate chthonic S4 this includes bullion, real station ( grammatical constructions and set ashore, ain retention, things in deed ( avow accounting systems) and other no nphysical assets. (e. g. Patent) ? Kelly and Lindsay (1998) Taken embody separate from the olympian college of surgeons to nonplus casts.Norm every(prenominal)y dead bodies are not billet just belonged to the royal college. ? A-G of Hong Kong v Chan Nai-Keung- Stolen quota ? Oxford v Moss non in clear property , knowledge of the questions on a exam paper ? Wild mushrooms and plants loafernot be property unless it is taken for reward or mercantile purposes. non larceny if creatures are wild, notwithstanding theft if they are in internment or owned. Belonging to another(prenominal) is outlined low S5, property sh either be regarded as belonging to each soul having stubbornness or make everyplace it, or having in it every proprietary right or interest. in that complaisancefore prosecution do not give to read who the good possessor is. turner (no. 2) (1971) Stealing own gondola railway cable machine Garage was in dominate of the property as he go away it with them to make stamping grounds and concede in that location by and by. Guilty, when property may not belong to another. (1) Trust property, where regent steals it (2) Property original on a lower floor elevator cartel Hall, (1972) Travel agent, deposits for client just the tickets. Klineberg and Marsden, Obligation to make deposits in a certain way. Timeshare a federal agencyments. Davidge V Bunnett Money for bill further didnt. 3)Property received by anothers error A-G Reference (No 1 of 1983) (1985) Salary over remunerative with patois transfer, had an obligation to re deport. Mens Rea Within the offence of the theft the mental element of the crime the mens rea is the shoddy aimion. Janus-facedy, it has to be turn up that they suspect appropriated dishonourablely, in that location is no commentary on a lower floor S2 yet it states that it is irrelevant whether it was do with a view of gain or own take in. Therefore significance if the other en tire elements are present the suspects motive is not relevant.S2 provides 3 situations in which the suspects demeanour is not double-faced. If a genuine article of faith in one of the three at a lower place not abominable. A) He has in truth the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself of a third individual. b) He would have the consent if the other k revolutionary of the appropriation and the considerateness of it. c) The soulfulness who the property belongs to cannot be detect by victorious well- planted steps. automatic to pay it doesnt pr razet purchasable conduct. A psyches appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonorable notwithstanding that he is provide undersurfaceing to pay for the property. The Ghosh canvass (1982) tether plate on dishonorabley. Ghosh a doctor, (a locum consultant) at hospital, He claimed fees for trading trading operations he had not carried out. COA resolved deceitfully has both aim and intrinsic element. 1. Was the operationion dishonest agree to the run-of-the-mine standards of presumable & honest mass? object 2. Did the suspect throw that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards? prejudiced Here the venire would out was the bearing tribulation, if it was telln to be dishonest it was carried to the whatever(prenominal)bodyal test, heretofore if it was not dishonest he would be sack upted. purpose to perpetually deprive this is the concluding element, which is defined in S6. Velumyl Comp several(prenominal)(prenominal) handler took ? 1050 from safe. He verbalize owed money to a assistant and would replace later. COA upheld disapprobation as he has captiveion of permanently depriving come with of banknotes. Permanent e. g. destroys property DPP v chromatic (1994) took adits from council property at quantify of repair and partd to replace deadening door in girlfriend council flat. Borrowing is not theft unless it is for a period and in draw making it equivalent to taking it or disposal Lloyd Not theft, consume taken copied and brought back un wrongfulnessd. Easom The suspect picked up a handbag in a cinema, rummaged through and through and through with(predicate) its contents and indeed(prenominal) entrap it back without having taken both(prenominal)thing, condition purposeion, not conscience-smitten. Robbery is an offence defined under S8 of the Theft morsel 1968, it provides A soul is finable of robbery if he steals, and flat in the lead or at the time of doing so, and in lay to do so, he single-valued functions index on either someone or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of universe then and on that point subjected to rip, depart be convicted of robbery.This is sanctionedally aggravated theft, by the use or/and bane of pressure. For robbery, theft essential(prenominal) be comp permited for robbery to be shootted, all the elements of theft need to be pres ent, and therefore if there is no theft, there is no robbery. The elements which have to be be for the bitus Reus of robbery are- 1. Theft 2. furiousness or putting or seek to put any person in fear of blackjack. ( immediately before or at time of theft and mustiness(prenominal) be in order to steal) finished Theft Where force is apply to steal, the piece that theft is complete, there is a robbery.A suit of clothes eccentric is Corcoran v Anderton (1980) Defendant dart woman in back and then tugged at her bag. She let go of the bag, however the suspects ran off without it, as the lady was screaming. It was held that theft occurred, therefore nefarious of robbery, (temporary Appropriation). If she had not let go of the bag, theft would not be completed, provided could be aerated with move robbery, (s9 (2) Theft Act 1968). Force or threat of force The prosecution must prove that there was a force or threat of force present. This is heady by the instrument panel. It has been said the amount of force use can be small. In R v Dawson, one the suspect nudged the victim causing loss of rest period so the other could take his wallet. dialog incase to decide if the force was present supercharged with robbery In R v Clouden, the defendant had wrenched on the victims handbag from her hands. COA held that whilst taking of property without apology from the owner, should not amount to robbery, the question of force on any person should be left to the control board. The force must be immediately before or at the time of the theft. It is fixed by the jury the length of theft, notwithstanding it has been held that theft is a continuing good turn. When theft is completed. Hale (1979), the ii defendants forced their way in. One defendant put his hand over her sing to stop her screaming while the other went upstairs and took a jewellery box and then tied up her up before leaving. COA, force of hand over mouth and theft ongoing. R v Lockley, th e defendant The defendant, with two others, was caught shoplifting cans of beer from an liquor store and used force on the storekeeper who was trying to stop them escaping The defendant appealed on the basis that the theft was complete when he used the force, but the Court of draw followed Hale and dismissed his appeal. On any person This force or threat of force can be put on any it does not have to be the person from whom the threat occurs. An example situation is bank robbery and force on customers. Force in order to steal If force is not used in order to steal it is not robbery, example being fight among defendant and victim and then theft. The defendant charged with OAPA and likewise theft. For the mens rea of robbery it must be turn up that the defendant had the- 1. intent for theft 2. Intended to use force to steal. Burglary offence is under S9 of Theft act 1968. It defines 2 different ways to commit burglary. parking lot elements of both, (a) entry (b) of mental synthesis or part of mental synthesis, (c) as intruder. Under S9(1)(a)A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser , with intent to steal, rape, do un virtueful prostitute and inflict gbh. Under S9(1)(b) A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or inflicts or attempts to inflict gbh on any person in the building. Actus ReusNot defined in Theft act 1968, but there are several cases of the gist. Collins COA, control panel satisfied that D do effective and substantial entry R v Brown Effective entry. D was out of doors shop windowpane dip in, looking through goods. Ryan (1996) D entered, detain in window of a digest at 230am, half body inside. The theft act gives extended center for the word building, but a basal definition is not given, however never really a problem with this. It includes houses, flats, office s, concomitantories It in any case includes outbuilding and sheds.Large storage containers B and S v Leathley (1979) A freezer container had been in a farmyard and been used for storage. It had be held to be a building Part of building. This is where a defendant has permit to be one field of operation of the building however not another. Walkington (1979) D went to the counter of the shop and open the till. S (9) (1) (a). Defendant to be committed of burglary he must enter as a trespasser. If have permission not a trespasser. Collins Drunken defendant precious sex, he saw an open window and climbed a ladder to look. A defenceless girl was asleep in Entered the room.She judgement he was her boyfriend they had sex. Charged under S9 (1) (a), Enter, trespasser with intent to rape. On appeal, conviction quashed as he was not a trespasser. A defendant can sour a trespasser even if he has a permission to enter. This is when the defendant goes beyond the given permission. metalw orker and Jones (1976) metalworker and friend went to smiths brings house and took two television sets without his fathers knowledge/ permission. His father utter that his son is not a trespasser, (general permission to enter). However COA, guilty of Burglary, S9 (1) (b), entering in access of the permission given to him.In line with Barker v R (1983) neighbour to look later property, told defendant that there is a key hidden if needed, but however entered property to steal. Mens Rea 2 parts Both, S9 (1) (a) and S9 (1) (b), must intend or be immanently wise to enter as a trespasser. With S9 (1) (a) the defendant will overly need the intention of committing at least(prenominal) one of the four offences tell when entering. He needs intention to steal or condition intention. For S9 (1) (b) the defendant must also have the mens rea for theft or gbh when committing or attempting to commit the actus Reus of burglary. dissimulation Offences (Fraud) and Making off without fee. De ception Offences ? Obtaining property by duplicity (s15 Theft Act 1968) ? Obtaining serve wells by legerdemain (s1 Theft Act 1978) ? Evading financial obligation by conjuring trick (s2 (1) Theft Act 1978). Common Elements (1) Deception (2) suffering/evading (3) Dishonesty picBasic definition is stated in S15 (4) Theft Act 1968. Any semblance (whether regard or intoxicating) by words or conduct as to the fact or as to rightfulness, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person.It applies to all 3 offences. It makes clear the deception can be words, silence, conduct Deception definition DPP v Ray (1973) Lord Reid. Deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is preposterous, and which the person practising double-dealing knows or believe it to be untrue Deception can be deliberate or bold. Spoken or written words -Silverman- (1987) D gave excessive quote to 2 elderly sisters, after buildi ng a good relationship from past. COA said it is deception. Quashed because jury. Conduct (e. g. alse humors, uniform) Barnard- (1837) went in to shop in oxford worn student clothes, and stated that he was a student, so could get deputize products on recognise. False pretent Silence keep be implied in certain situations, DPP v Ray (1973). Went to restaurant with friends, he didnt have enough money but friend agree to pay, however they all decided not to pay and then ran out of restaurant. Circumstances Also when circumstances have changed Rai (2000) Applied for grant for on a lower floor bathroom for elderly mother. It ap turn up but she died, did not tell council. Firth 1990) Doctor who failed to allege the NHS hospital, that some patients were private, he avoided stipendiary charged to the hospital. Use of cheques When a person writes a cheque, it implies that they have the bank account and money in this, to pay for the cheque, representations of fact. Gilmartin (19 83) D pay for supplies with a post dates cheque which he knew would not be met. Use of cheque warrant cards It is issued by the bank on current accounts, which has a desexualise of ? 50- ? 100. The bank guarantees that a cheque up to a specific amount will be met by bank. Charles (1976). D bank account had overdraft of up to ? 00. Has cheque guarantee card for up to ? 30. Not meant to use more than 1 a do. Wrote 25 of ? 30, also knew he no fit funds. HOL, false representation S16, Theft act 1968 (Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. Credit cards. Representations, user of card is the pattern on card and has the authority of pester Company to use it. Lambie (1981) D had a Barclaycard credit card which had a fix of ? 200 she exceeded limit and bank asked for card to be returned. HOL reinstated it. Deception as to fact, law intention. False statement about the law can be deception and also deception about the facts. King and Stockwell (1987) The incorrectly represented to woman that they were reputable self-coloured of tree surgeon, and made false claims to make her agree to pay for operate on. Attempting to obtain property by deception. picAs well as proving deception, it must be shown that a person was deceived and property/ servicing/ evade financial obligation as a gist of deception. Common in all deception offences. Deception is not relevant to the person to whom it is made. Laverty. D changed minute plates and chassis of car and sold to plaintiff. Not deception as plaintiff purpose he was owner and no prove of deception. Etim v Hatfield D produced false solvent to PO shop assistant that he was authorize to supplementary benefits. wreak gave him ? 10. 60. Without deception no payment would be given. Machines, not manageable for deception to happen, however it may be charged as theft. Deception after obtaining is not deception. Collis-Smith D change car up with gas pedal and claimed that his company would pay for his flatulenc e. Ownership of petrol passed to him. Led to new law of the theft act 1978 under, S2. pic It must be proved in all deception offences. The Ghosh demonstrate (1982) Leading case on dishonesty. Ghosh a doctor, (a locum consultant) at hospital.He claimed fees for operations he had not carried out. COA decided deceitfully has both objective and subjective element. Was the put through dishonest according to the characterless standards of reasonable & honest people? Objective Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards? Subjective Here the jury would father was the objective test, if it was proved to be dishonest it was carried to the subjective test, however if it was not dishonest he would be acquitted. Intention to permanently deprive, S15 (3) states that S6 shall apply to this offence, the word appropriation is changed to obtaining. Makes the deception deliberately or to be rash as to whether they are deceiving others Obtaining Property by Deception is defined in S15 of the Theft act 1968 it states that any deception made to deceitfully obtain property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. It is similar to theft however property must be obtained through deception. nigh offences of obtaining by deception could also be charged with theft, since the case of Gomez which overlapped these laws. Actus Reus. Obtain S15 (2), states that obtain heart obtaining ownership, possession or control of it.Any one is sufficient makes clear that obtaining can be for another person or to enable another person or to keep it. Property It has the same meaning as it theft. It includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in achieve (bank accounts) and other intangible assets (e. g. Patents). The only dispute being that it has no restrictions on obtaining terra firma (limited situations) Belonging to another has the same meaning as in theft, therefore it mea ns any person having possession or control over it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest. Obtaining because of deception As well as proving deception, it must be shown that a person was deceived and property obtained as a result of deception. Deception is not relevant to the person to whom it is made. Laverty. D changed build plates and chassis of car and sold to plaintiff. Not deception as plaintiff thought that defendant was owner, no proof of deception. Etim v Hatfield D produced false declaration to PO clerk that he was authorise to benefits. Clerk gave him ? 10. 60. Without deception no payment would be given. Deception after obtaining is not deception. Collis-Smith D filled car up with petrol and claimed that his company would pay for his petrol. Ownership passed to him. Led to S2 theft act 1978 Mens rea Dishonest The Ghosh Test (1982) Leading case on dishonesty. Ghosh a doctor, (a locum consultant) at hospital. He claimed fees for operations he had not car ried out. COA decided dishonestly has both objective and subjective element. Was the action dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable & honest people? O Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards? SHere the jury would start was the objective test, if it was proved to be dishonest it was carried to the subjective test, however if it was not dishonest he would be acquitted. Intention to permanently deprive, S15 (3) states that S6 shall apply to this offence, the word appropriation is changed to obtaining. Makes the deception deliberately or to be reckless as to whether they are deceiving others Obtaining Services by Deception is a offence under S1 of Theft act 1978, which states, S1 (1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence.S1 (2) It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to visit a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act t o be done, on the understand that the benefit has been or will be pay for. The defendant make the other person induce to confer a benefit by AR Doing some act Causing some act to be done Permitting some act to be done This part of the actus Reus covers a wide range of situations of the ways that the offence can be committed. The act must cause a benefit to the defendant and must be proved that the benefit has been or will be pay for. If the benefit is free there is no offence even if the defendant was dishonest. The victim doesnt have to suffer any loss. Service E. g. haircut, hotel stay, entertainment activity, film, repair of goods, cleanup and decoration etc. Widdowson obtaining of hire purchases in order to buy a car was a service. Halai Mortgage advantage not a service. But S1 (3) inserted into S1 by the theft, (amendment) act 1996. Now contained in S1 theft 1978. Sofroniou Obtaining loans through a bank account or by way of overdraft was now, with the amending addition o f S1 deep down the meaning of services.COA held that opening bank account and obtaining credit card is also a service. Understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for. For there to be an offence they have to be shown that they were a benefit which had been or would be paid for. Sofroniou. D opened 2 bank accounts under false names, and then coherent for loans in both accounts causing account to become overdrawn. He then apply for store credit and exceeded limit. Convicted of S1 theft act 1978. Understanding of the payment Mens rea Dishonesty, deception was made intentionally or recklessly Dishonest The Ghosh Test (1982) Leading case on dishonesty.Ghosh a doctor, (a locum consultant) at hospital. He claimed fees for operations he had not carried out. COA decided dishonestly has both objective and subjective element. Was the action dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable & honest people? O Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was di shonest by those standards? S Here the jury would start was the objective test, if it was proved to be dishonest it was carried to the subjective test, however if it was not dishonest he would be acquitted. Makes the deception deliberately or to be reckless as to whether they are deceiving othersEvasion of Liability is under S2 if the Theft act 1978, it creates a number ways that evasion of indebtedness can be committed2(1) (a) dishonestly secures the remission of the completely or part of any exist obligation to make a payment, whether his own liability or anothers or 2(1) (b) with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment, or with intent to let another do so, dishonestly induces the creditor or any person claiming payment on behalf of the creditor to stop for payment (whether or not the collectable date for payment is deferred) or to forgo payment or 2(1) (c) dishonestly obtains any exemption from or abatement of liabili ty to make a payment shall be guilty of an offence. The liability is limited to legally enforceable liability Securing remissions of a liability E. g. persuades creditor to let him off repaying all or part of debt, through untrue stories and deception. Jackson D paid for petrol using a stolen credit card, it was decided that he had an existing liability to pay for it by deception through the stolen credit card Inducing a creditor to wait or forgo payment, with (a) There must be an existing liability, but for (b) this offence it is enough if the defendant induces the creditor to wait for payment or forgo payment, the defendant must intend to make a permanent default. Holt and lee Two defendants had a meal in a pizza restaurant, after they finished they made a plan to tell their waitress they had already made payment to another instalment of staff, so they could leave without paying. This was heard by an off duty police police military officer and they were arrested for attempti ng to induce a creditor to forgo payment. Turner (1974) Defendant owed money for some work done, but the defendant said he had no ready cash and persuaded creditor to behave a cheque which he knew would not be met. Intent Obtaining an exemption from or an abatement of liability Covers more habitual situations. E. g. People use invalid tickets or claim discounts that they are not entitled to. Leading case Sibartie(1983) Defendant was a law student, bought two season tickets for casual journey, one ticket application program the outset of his journey and the other ticket covering the end of his journey on in between were 14 stations including an alternate station which had no valid ticked.At the interchange station passing a ticket inspector, the appellant flashed ticked so fast so that she could not see what was on it. He with evasion of a liability by deception, contrary to section 2(1) (c) of the Theft Act 1978. Firth 1990) Doctor who failed to inform the NHS hospital, tha t some patients were private, he avoided paying charged to the hospital. Mens rea picAs well as proving deception, it must be shown that a person was deceived evaded liability as a result of deception. Common in all deception offences. Deception is not relevant to the person to whom it is made. Laverty. D changed number plates and chassis of car and sold to plaintiff. Not deception as plaintiff thought he was owner and no proof of deception. Etim v Hatfield D produced false declaration to PO clerk that he was entitled to supplementary benefits. Clerk gave him ? 10. 60. Without deception no payment would be given. Machines, not possible for deception to happen, however it may be charged as theft. Deception after obtaining is not deception. Collis-Smith D filled car up with petrol and claimed that his company would pay for his petrol. Ownership of petrol passed to him. Led to new law of the theft act 1978 under, S2. pic It must be proved in all deception offences. The Ghosh Test (1982 ) Leading case on dishonesty. Ghosh a doctor, (a locum consultant) at hospital. He claimed fees for operations he had not carried out.COA decided dishonestly has both objective and subjective element. Was the action dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable & honest people? Objective Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards? Subjective Here the jury would start was the objective test, if it was proved to be dishonest it was carried to the subjective test, however if it was not dishonest he would be acquitted. Intention to permanently deprive, S15 (3) states that S6 shall apply to this offence, the word appropriation is changed to obtaining. Makes the deception deliberately or to be reckless as to whether they are deceiving othersMaking off without payment, is defined under S3 (1) of the Theft Act 1978, it provides a person who, knowing that payment on the smirch for any goods supplied or service done is required or e valuate from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or judge and with intent to avoid payment of the amount collect shall be guilty of an offence. The goods supplied or service must be rightful(a), if not there is no offence. This offence was created as the Theft act 1968 had numerous loop holes which meant many defendants were getting off not guilty even if defendants conduct seen by many as whitlow. One spreadhead was seen in the case Greenburg (1972) D filled car up at service department and driven off without paying, not guilty as moment petrol was appropriated it belonged to him. salary on the gunpoint includes payment at the time of collecting goods on which work has been done or in respect of which service has been provided. Needs to be proved that POTS was required or expected. Vincent (2001) D stayed at two hotels and left without fully paying his bills, having persuaded both hotel owners, by deception, to postpone payment, so POTS was not requ ired. The COA quashed his conviction under S3, because the hoteliers had agreed to postpone payment, which meant that the actus Reus had not been committed. Makes off The defendant must make off for the spot that payment is required McDavitt- D refused to pay a bill after an principle with the manager. D walked towards the door but was told the police were called. D went to the toilet and remained there.Directed jury to acquit the defendant, as he had not made off without payment. Brooks & Brooks, D1 ran out of a rear door and D2 was caught having walked out of a restaurant. The spot was treated as being cash register the spot where payment is required. Mens Rea Dishonesty (Same as theft) -The Ghosh Test (1982) Leading case on dishonesty. Ghosh a doctor, (a locum consultant) at hospital. He claimed fees for operations he had not carried out. COA decided dishonestly has both objective and subjective element. Was the action dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reason able & honest people? Objective Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards? SubjectiveHere the jury would start was the objective test, if it was proved to be dishonest it was carried to the subjective test, however if it was not dishonest he would be acquitted. Knowledge that payment on the spot is required. It must be established that the defendant knew payment was required or expected of him. Examples are restaurants where bill paid before leaving. Intention to avoid payment with intent to avoid payment for the amount due Allen (1985) HOL stated there must be an intent permanently to avoid payment. D left hotel without payment of ? 1,286, leaving behind his belongings. He phoned later to say he would pay as soon as he received sufficient money and arranged to collect his belongings and leave his passport as security.Basic deplorable reproach is set out in S1 (1) of the criminal damage act 1971 where it provides that A person who without l awful excuse destroys or remedy any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any much(prenominal) property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be finished or damaged shall be guilty of an offence. Actus Reus This enunciate is not defined in the act, however old cases have stated that elegant damage was sufficient to prove damage. Gayford v Chouler- Trampling down grass, no continuing binding but a glib-tongued precedent. ? Roe v Kingerlee Smearing excrement on walls of a police cell it woo ? 6 to clean up. Matter of fact and degree, damage even if not permanent. Hardman flick on pavements, removed with jets. None permanent ? Blake v DPP Biblical quotation on a concrete pillar, cost to clean, so held as damage ? Samuel v Stubbs Denting a policemans hat, causing a temporary functional derangement ? A v R D ado on policeman shirt, minimal motion to remove, therefore no damage. ? Morphitis v Solmon corrasion on scaffolding pole , doesnt appropriate its usefulness or integrity. Defined in S10 (1) of criminal damage act 1971, property means pr of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money and land tamed wild creatures (or their carcasses) but not including wild mushrooms, fruit or foliage. Not intangibleBelonging to another is defined in S10 (2), provides that property belongs to any person having custody or control of it any proprietary right or interest or a charge on it. Cannot be guilty of alter or destroying own property. ? Smith 1974, D removed some galvanizing wiring . Not guilty, lacked mens rea. Mens Reus Pembliton (1874) D threw muffin at men who were fighting, missed and stone-broke window. No intention even if he had intent to throw stone. No charge. Smith 1974, Believed he was damaging own property. ethical belief, negatives the mens rea. Stephenson (1979) D was tramp sheltering in a hay stack, lit a send away costs in damages.Would have been guilty if he was not sc hizophrenic, he didnt realise the en insecurityment. Caldwell (1981), the HOL changed the law. Reckless created an obvious happen to property.. It was used up to 2003. Gemmell and Richards reinstated the subjected test for recklessness. The two young defendants went camping without their parents permission. During the shadow they entered the back yard of a shop and set liberation to some bundles of they found and threw some it under a tremendous plastic wheelie-bin and left. The fire spread and caused approximately ? 1m worth of damage. The defendants stated they thought it would root out itself because of the concrete, could not be charged as they didnt realise the risk. 5 (2) (a) D believed that the owner had consented or would have consented to terminal or damage. S5(2)(b) D did it to protect some other property which he believed was in immediate need of protection and the means of protection were reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. (a) Denton, Thought em ployer had encouraged him to set fire to mill to make insurance claim. (B) bleed helped wife in duty as deputy warden in block of flats. label fire to bedding to show alarms didnt work. Conviction upheld as not for protection. (b)Conviction upheld baker and Williams, only for immediate danger. (Endangering Life) alter criminal Damage is under S1 (2) of Criminal damage act (1971). A person who 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 dying or damage to endanger the keep of another or being reckless as to whether the disembodied spirit of another would be thereby endangered shall be guilty of an offence. . Much more serious than basic, carries lifespan sentence. The danger must come from the dying/damage. Steer (1987) D fired 3 shots at the window of ex billet partner, cau sing damage. Not guilty danger from shots. Webster D pushed large stone from distich on to train, caused damage & showered passengers with debris, based on Recklessness. Warwick D rammed s police car and threw brick at it, causing damage and showered the officer with broken glass.Aggravated criminal damage the life doesnt have to be endangered. Sangha D set fire to mattress & 2 chairs in neighbours flat, however flat was empty and no one was at risk. Realised risk he would be guilty even if no actual risk. Merrick Employed to removed cables, life live wire out for 6 minutes, no one was hurt, but charged, if it was owner he would also be guilty. Mens Rea Intention or Recklessness as to destroying or damaging any property and Intention or reckless as to whether the life is endangered by the ending or damage. (Same meaning as basic offence). The prosecution must prove that the defendant was both aware of risk and danger.R( Stephen Malcolm) d was 15 years old, with friends thrown m ilk bottles filled with petrol at the outside of neighbour flat. This caused sheets of flame across window, thus endangering the lives of occupants, guilty. Arson Under s1 (3) of the criminal damage act 1971, an offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson. the maximum penalisation if life imprisonment. The basic offence of criminal damage must contain remnant through fire, thus the rest is the same. Aggravated Arson Prosecution must prove that the defendant intended or was reckless as to whether life was endangered by the damage or destruction by fire. Miller HOL held that arson can be committed through omission.