Criminal Damage Offences Analysis

Words: 2215
Pages: 9

This question is based on a set of events which a person may be found liable for under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This act states that ‘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’. This offence contains two separate elements. Actus reus and mens rea. Usually with criminal damage offences both elements need to be present at the same time in order for a person to be found guilty of criminal damage, however there has been cases where this has been argued otherwise in exceptional circumstance e.g. a continuing act as shown in …show more content…
Allie’s gatepost would be the property belonging to another in which he arguably damaged without a lawful excuse. The definition of ‘property’ can be found in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 S10. The criminal definition excludes intangible property such as credit balances and includes real property such as land and buildings. These cannot be stolen but are frequently the target of criminal damage. Belonging to another is also required by criminal law in a sense that it is not an offence to damage/destroy one’s own property. The mens rea element to this offence may be argued as the carving of words could show intention. The word ‘carve’ insinuates a sharp object was used in order to sustain the damaged caused. Therefore this could show that Pinky’s intention was to cause damage to the gatepost. If Pinky did not have any intention to the damage, he may have just used a felt tip pen or something less effective. The fact it was a wooden gatepost also suggests he had thought about what would be most effective, and the word ‘carve’ suggests he used the right object to ensure he would be successful in doing …show more content…
However each offence can be argued otherwise as demonstrated above, but it may be safe to say that the prosecution would have a stronger case. If Pinky is to be found guilty of these offences, he would be sentenced under S4 ‘punishment of offences’ of the Criminal Damages Act 1971. This states that (1)a person guilty of arson under S1 above or of an offence under S1(2) above shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life. (2)a person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years’. This suggests that the carving of the wooden gatepost would be considered a basic offence and come under S4(2), in which case Pinky would be liable to imprisonment for a certain amount of time, as long as it is not exceeding ten years. However the chandelier incident and the destruction of the ballot papers are slightly more serious offences. They would be considered an aggravated offence in which the punishment states in S4(1), life imprisonment. Therefore it seems that if Pinky is found guilty of even one of the aggravated offences, he will be facing life