User Tools
criminal_damage
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
criminal_damage [2017/04/21 17:29] testtest2017 |
criminal_damage [2017/04/21 17:42] 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. | ||
| - | It is not necessary to prove that the damage itself is tangible, although by section 10 of the 1971 Act (post , §23-54) the property which is damaged must be tangible: Whiteley, ante. | + | It is not necessary to prove that the damage itself is tangible, although by section 10 of the 1971 Act the property which is damaged must be tangible: Whiteley, ante. |
| A modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition: see the Computer Misuse Act 1990, s.3(6) (post, §23-89), which is repealed and replaced, as from a day to be appointed, by section 10(5) of the 1971 Act (post, §23-54). | A modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition: see the Computer Misuse Act 1990, s.3(6) (post, §23-89), which is repealed and replaced, as from a day to be appointed, by section 10(5) of the 1971 Act (post, §23-54). | ||
criminal_damage.txt · Last modified: 2017/05/09 21:01 by barnaby2015
Page Tools
