Crime CLXIV-Criminal Damage IV
The
mens rea for criminal damage or the mental element that the prosecution needs
to satisfy before it can obtain a conviction for criminal damage is either: -
1)
intention i.e. the defendant intended to cause the damage that resulted
or
2)
recklessness i.e. the defendant did not give any thought to the damage that
would result from his actions or having given it some thought, dismissed it.
Intention
In
R v Smith (1974) the defendant was a tenant in a ground floor flat. He obtained
the permission of the landlord to install some sound equipment and sound
proofing equipment.
When
his tenancy was up, and he had to vacate the property, the tenant not only
uninstalled the sound equipment and sound proofing equipment, but he also
ripped out the wires that ran below the flooring.
Unknown
to the defendant the sound equipment and the soundproofing equipment had become
a permanent feature of the flat and were thus regarded as the property of the
landlord (a similar situation would apply to renovations done to a rental
property and while the tenant is entitled to enjoy the benefits of the
renovations while he is there, when he decides to leave or has to vacate he
cannot try and undo the renovations for the simple reason that it might damage
the property).
The
tenant was convicted for criminal damage and appealed on the grounds that since
he’d paid for the sound equipment and soundproofing equipment, he was entitled
to damage them. He honestly believed that they belonged to him and therefore he
was entitled to do with them as he liked.
The
conviction was quashed. A mistaken but honest belief in such situations is a
defense to a charge of causing criminal damage. However, that mistaken belief
has to be reasonable (reasonable implying that it is a mistake than a normal
person or an average person would make), and in this instance the court held
that it was.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment