Crime CLXIX-Criminal Damage IX
In
Samuels v Stubbs (1972) the defendant trampled on a policeman’s cap. The damage
was nominal, and the cap could easily have been pushed back into place, but the
defendant was charged nonetheless and was convicted.
The
defendant appealed, and it was decided that the defendant’s actions did indeed
constitute criminal damage. It is difficult to express in advance what damage
is, and it covers a wide range of things, and not all of them need to put the
victim out of pocket. Even if the damage is nominal, the defendant could still
be charged and convicted for criminal damage.
However,
it could be said with some degree of certain that the defendant’s actions were
willful and malicious as opposed to accidental or unintentional and that in
itself, regardless of the type of damage that is done or caused or the severity
of the damage, whether the victim is put out of pocket or otherwise, is
sufficient to render the defendant liable under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment