CRIMINAL LAW PROBLEM

CRIMINAL LAW PROBLEM

CRIMINAL LAW PROBLEM

Introduction

Referring to the scenario it was Dot's negligence (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. (Allen, M.J. Criminal Law 2001, pp.473)

Part 1: DOT

A person who without lawful reason decimates or damages any property, belonging to himself or another- (a) proposing to destroy or impair any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or impaired; and (b) intending by the decimation or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby threatened; will be guilty of an offence. (3) An offence pledged under this part by decimating or damaging property by fire will be ascribed as arson. section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which defines the offence of lawless person impairment as occurring where a person: …without lawful apologise decimates or damages any property belonging to another proposing to decimate or damage such house or being reckless as to if any such property would be destroyed or impaired… It will be clear that the actus reus of this offence will be established where an individual 'destroys or damages any house belonging to another' i.e. the external component of the offence. If we analyse this external element further it will in addition be clear that the 'conduct' component of the actus reus of criminal impairment in any perform which results in the impairment to or destruction of the property and this would encompass an omission to act. The 'circumstances' component of the actus reus of lawless person damage will be persuaded by verification that what was destroyed or impaired was house which belonged to another and that the impairment or decimation was effected without a lawful excuse. (Ashworth C. 2003 Pp. 12)

Criminal damage is a result crime and the 'consequences' element of the actus reus of this offence will be satisfied by proof that the destruction or damage of the property was caused by Dot's conduct. If all of these components are verified by the prosecution (i.e. the committee is persuaded after sensible doubt), then the actus reus of criminal impairment is established. However, whereas verification of actus reus is an essential precondition of conviction, where the infringement is one which needs proof of mens rea - as is lawless person damage - proof of actus reus solely is not sufficient to convict a defendant. The prosecution will also reveal how Dot committed the actus reus of the infringement with the appropriate mens rea. Lord Lane CJ refers specifically to the judgment in Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48, where Auld J said: "damage should be understood so as to include not only enduring or provisional physical damage, but furthermore enduring or provisional, impairment of worth or ...