It defines that, for aggravted criminal damage, d must be intend or be reckless that life will be endangered through the damage or destruction of the property
1 of 7
Does the property have to belong to another for this type of criminal damage?
The property does not have to belong to another
2 of 7
Are there lawful excuses for this type of criminal damage?
There are no lawful excuses stated
3 of 7
What happened in the case of Steer?
D shot at v, but in the process, broke a window
4 of 7
Why was D not guilty in this case?
D was found not guilty because v's endangerment was not linked with the criminal damage
5 of 7
What happened in the case of Sangha?
D was aware that there was a risk of endangering life of others in adjacent buildings when setting fire to chairs
6 of 7
What did this case confirm?
This case confirmed that d does not have to actually endanger life, they just have to intend or be reckless to do so
7 of 7
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Does the property have to belong to another for this type of criminal damage?
Back
The property does not have to belong to another
Card 3
Front
Are there lawful excuses for this type of criminal damage?
Comments
No comments have yet been made