Criminal Damage
- Under Criminal Damage Act 1971
- Simple criminal damage (s.1(1)) and aggravated (s.1(2))
Simple criminal damage
- s.1(1) — 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.
- AR: destroys or damages, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse
- MR: intention or recklessness as to destroying or damaging such property
- Destroy or damage
• Does not need to be permanent
• Gayford v Chouler [1898] — D trespassed onto field of knee-deep grass and walked across it,
causing damage.
• Damage must be more than merely trivial or nominal
• A (a juvenile) v R [1978] — D spat on police officer’s coat, leaving faint mark. Held to not be
sufficient damage, but would be different if coat had been stained or marked
• What constitutes damage is a matter of fact and degree (Roe v Kingerlee [1986])
• Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset [1986] — Ds painted human silhouettes with
water-soluble paint, and even though it was easy to wash away, it was still criminal damage
because it caused expense and inconvenience
• Erasing or altering computer programs or data on computers has in the past also been held to
constitute damage (Cox v Riley (1986))
• Whiteley [1991] — ‘[w]hat the Act requires to be proved is that tangible property has been
damaged, not necessarily that the damage itself should be tangible’.
• Morphitis v Salmon [1990] — D’s conviction after scratching scaffold bar quashed because no
impairment of the value or usefulness of bar
• Fisher [1865] — structure of machine can be damaged by careful removal of one of its parts
- Property
• s.10(1) — ‘property’ means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including
money
• Applies to land and scope for this is wider than in Theft Act 1968
• Excludes as property mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers, fruit, or foliage of a
plant growing wild on any land
- Belonging to another
• s.10(2) — property belongs to another if somebody else has custody or control of the property
you own, or they have a proprietary right or interest in it, or a charge on it
• s.10(3) — property under a trust belongs to any person having a right to enforce the trust
- Without lawful excuse
• s.5(2) sets out 2 defences that grant D lawful excuse
• Belief in consent — s.5(2)(a)
• D has lawful excuse if they believed that owner of property consented or would have
consented to destruction or damage of property (reiterated in Attorney General’s Reference
(No 1 of 2023) [2024])
• Belief needs to be present at time of commission of offence, not after
• Belief subjectively assessed, even if it is immaterial to have the belief (s.5(3))
- Under Criminal Damage Act 1971
- Simple criminal damage (s.1(1)) and aggravated (s.1(2))
Simple criminal damage
- s.1(1) — 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.
- AR: destroys or damages, property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse
- MR: intention or recklessness as to destroying or damaging such property
- Destroy or damage
• Does not need to be permanent
• Gayford v Chouler [1898] — D trespassed onto field of knee-deep grass and walked across it,
causing damage.
• Damage must be more than merely trivial or nominal
• A (a juvenile) v R [1978] — D spat on police officer’s coat, leaving faint mark. Held to not be
sufficient damage, but would be different if coat had been stained or marked
• What constitutes damage is a matter of fact and degree (Roe v Kingerlee [1986])
• Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset [1986] — Ds painted human silhouettes with
water-soluble paint, and even though it was easy to wash away, it was still criminal damage
because it caused expense and inconvenience
• Erasing or altering computer programs or data on computers has in the past also been held to
constitute damage (Cox v Riley (1986))
• Whiteley [1991] — ‘[w]hat the Act requires to be proved is that tangible property has been
damaged, not necessarily that the damage itself should be tangible’.
• Morphitis v Salmon [1990] — D’s conviction after scratching scaffold bar quashed because no
impairment of the value or usefulness of bar
• Fisher [1865] — structure of machine can be damaged by careful removal of one of its parts
- Property
• s.10(1) — ‘property’ means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including
money
• Applies to land and scope for this is wider than in Theft Act 1968
• Excludes as property mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers, fruit, or foliage of a
plant growing wild on any land
- Belonging to another
• s.10(2) — property belongs to another if somebody else has custody or control of the property
you own, or they have a proprietary right or interest in it, or a charge on it
• s.10(3) — property under a trust belongs to any person having a right to enforce the trust
- Without lawful excuse
• s.5(2) sets out 2 defences that grant D lawful excuse
• Belief in consent — s.5(2)(a)
• D has lawful excuse if they believed that owner of property consented or would have
consented to destruction or damage of property (reiterated in Attorney General’s Reference
(No 1 of 2023) [2024])
• Belief needs to be present at time of commission of offence, not after
• Belief subjectively assessed, even if it is immaterial to have the belief (s.5(3))
