Criminal Damage Act Essay

1093 Words3 Pages

When Elizabeth was “dropping large stones from a bridge onto the motorway”, she might has committed criminal damage under section 1(1) the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and is defined as follows:

“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.”

The actus reus includes the terms “destroy”, “damage”, “property” and “belonging to another”, which Elizabeth has substantially done. Besides, it also includes “without lawful excuse”, which is provided under section 5(2) of the Act : (a) persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage o the property; or (b) in order to protect property and the means of protection would be reasonable. However, Elizabeth do not satisfied any lawful excuse. The men rea for this offence requires intention or recklessness of damaging or destroying the property. Elizabeth did not have a direct intention to damage or destroy the property, as her purpose was to “enliven her afternoon”. However, she might have caused the damage or destruction by recklessness. The recklessness was meant to connote foresight of consequence is apparent from the Law Commission’s Report, and is reinforced by the proposed definition of recklessness from Law Commission. Subjective test for recklessness is used in this case, which defined in Cunningham (1957). She would not commit an offence of criminal damage unless she subjectively reckless as to the risk of damaging the road.

If she has foreseen the risk and decided to take it, she has committed the offence. Subsequently, it would be the question tha...

... middle of paper ...

...ss he did not breached his duty of care.

Furthermore, Helen, who is Fred’s ex-wife, might be charged for murder, under the common law offence. The actus reus for murder is the act or unlawful omission caused death. The mens rea requires intention (malice aforethought) only. She has the intention to kill Fred by switching off the life-support machine, as she sneaked into the hospital overnight, and Fred died as a result. She would be charged for murder unless she has sufficient defence, for instance, loss of self-control and one of the statutory qualifying triggers is satisfied , and suffering from diminished responsibility , where it would reduced her offence from murder to manslaughter. However, there is no certain answer for whether it would be criminal liability to kill a person if he is in a hopeless condition and kept alive inly by an apparatus of some kind.

Open Document