CASE STUDY

Case Study of Criminal Damage Act 1971

Case Study of Criminal Damage Act 1971

Analysis of Dot's situation in the Case

In order to solve the case, I will start dicussing the situation of Dot and relevant sections of the Criminal Damage Act, followed by the situation of Earl in the case. Recklessness is considered to be different; first, it applies only in the case of criminal damage. The MPC helped to create Caldwell to create new and much larger tests for recklessness. Caldwell was former employee of the hotel and fed a grudge against its owner. He started a fire in the hotel, which caused some damage and was convicted of arson. This offence is defined in the Act on criminal damage of 1971 as requiring intention or gross negligence. On the facts there was no intention and negligence, Lord Diplock stated that the definition of insanity in Cunningham narrowed the Criminal Act 1971. For this Act, "he said, negligence should include not only Cunningham, but also goes further. He said that a person knows whether any property is destroyed or damaged, if:

1. He/ she does an act which actually creates a clear risk that the property is destroyed or damaged and

2. When it is either not to act is given any thought to any risk or recognized that there are some risks involved and less went into it.

This part of the law on criminal damage resembles and is applied to the Dot as she inflicted the loss of on Earl out of her forgetfulness so it can not be counted as intentional, its purely out of negligence.

The definition of this type of recklessness is called Cunningham recklessness. This part of the law on criminal damage resembles and is applied to the case of Earl, even though Earl did not wanted to hurt Dot, as he thought she would be out of home, but he broke the window intentionally.

Analysis and Elobaration of the Case in Light of CDA

Thus, there are actually two potential ways that can be proven, Caldwell recklessness. The first method is very similar to the old Cunningham tests: it does act which actually creates risk and acknowledged that there is some risk; The second way is an important extension of meaning: it makes the Act of madness, which actually creates a clear danger and he never gave any thought to the possibility of any such risk.

One problem with recklessness or two tests. Having two different tests for the same Word causes confusion and is not required. The current Act expressing concern that a higher standard of Cunningham rape and lower Caldwell standard applies to criminal damage. This means the property is protected better, than people. Another issue is the Caldwell inadvertently means that means real is generally regarded as less morally condemn than Cunningham recklessness is used for certain serious offences. Lord Diplock stated that there are three good reasons for extending the test for insanity. First, the accused may be recklessness in the usual sense, ...