Other Property Offences

Hardman v CC Avon (1986) - daubing the pavement with water-based paint, which was easily washed off, was damage because it took time and expense to do so.

A v R (1978) - spitting on a police officer's coat was not damage because the coat was restored simply by wiping it off. The value and utility of the coat were not affected. 

Jaggard v Dickinson (1981) - the defendant broke two windows and damaged a curtain in the victim's house because the defendant, due to voluntary intoxication, mistakenly believed that she was damaging the property of X, a friend, and that he (X) would have consented to her doing so. The Divisional Court held that it was clear from S5(2)(a) that if the belief was honestly held it was irrelevant that it was unreasonable. 

R v Hill and Hall (1989) - the Court of Appeal held that the test was whether, on the facts believed by the defendant (subjective), the damage could amount to something done to protect her home and that of her nearby friends (the objective test). 

R v Hunt (1978) - the defendant had been charged with setting fire to a guest room in an old people's home. He claimed that he had done so to draw attention to a defective fire alarm system. He sought to set up a statutory defence under s5(2) by claiming to have had a lawful excuse for doing what he did. The judge withdrew that defence. The defendant appealed, but it failed.

R v Smith (1974) - the appellant was a tenant in a ground floor flat. With the consent of the landlord, he purchased some electrical wiring, roofing equipment, wall panels and flooring and installed them into the conservatory. By installing these items, in law, they became the property of the landlord, as they formed part of the flat. When the tenancy came to an end, the appellant removed the wiring which involved damaging the wall panels. He was convicted of criminal damage and appealed contending he lacked the mens rea of the offence as he believed that since he had paid for the panels he had a right to damage them. His conviction was quashed, as the defendant lacked the mens rea of criminal damage as he believed the property he damaged belonged to him. It was irrelevant that the mistake was one of law rather than fact as it related to a mistake of civil law rather than criminal law and there was no need to demonstrate a reasonable belief, it being sufficient that it was honestly held.

R v G (2004) - two boys, aged 11 and 12, set fire to newspapers in the yard at the back of a shop and threw the lit newspapers under a wheelie bin. They left the yard without putting out the fire. The burning newspapers set fire to the bin, spread to the shop, and caused £1m damage. They expected the newspapers to burn themselves out on the concrete floor…