This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
criminal_damage [2017/04/21 17:29] testtest2017 |
criminal_damage [2017/04/21 17:39] frescom |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
== Sentence == | == Sentence == | ||
- | Imprisonment for 10 years: Criminal Damage Act 1971, s.4, post, §23-46. | + | Imprisonment for 10 years: Criminal Damage Act 1971 s4 |
- | + | ||
- | There are no Crown Court sentencing guidelines for criminal damage. For illustrative decisions, see CSP, B7-2.3. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | commentary023-5 | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | Consent | + | |
- | + | ||
- | As to the need to obtain the Director of Public Prosecution's consent before instituting proceedings against a person for an offence of doing unlawful damage to property belonging to that person's spouse, see the Theft Act 1968, s.30(4), ante, §21-334. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | commentary023-6 | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | "Damage" | + | |
+ | == Elements of the Offence == | ||
"Damage" is interpreted widely to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness: Morphitis v. Salmon[1990] Crim. L.R. 48, DC; R. v. Whiteley,93 Cr.App.R. 25, CA (where the authorities are usefully reviewed); and R. v. Fiak[2005] 10Archbold News 1 , CA. | "Damage" is interpreted widely to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness: Morphitis v. Salmon[1990] Crim. L.R. 48, DC; R. v. Whiteley,93 Cr.App.R. 25, CA (where the authorities are usefully reviewed); and R. v. Fiak[2005] 10Archbold News 1 , CA. | ||