Is farmer spraying slurry on a car criminal damage?
Discussion
I’m just curious. Car parked on farmers land. Farmer deliberately covers it in slurry. I seem to recall from some threads on here you can’t just do what you want to other people’s property, and also non-permanent acts can still be criminal damage. Can’t remember the specific threads
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8354265/C...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8354265/C...
Floydey said:
Farmers private land, carrying out slurry spraying within the permitted months of the year
Don't see a problem with what he did, see a problem with the Merc driver thinking it's fine to park on private land (assuming that is the case)
Video looks like he's gone out to do it to that car and that car alone. Would make it difficult to defend as an action, regardless of the wrongs.Don't see a problem with what he did, see a problem with the Merc driver thinking it's fine to park on private land (assuming that is the case)
Lots of country folks in the world upset that other people like to come out and visit the country.
I wouldn't have done it - it will certainly leave marks on the paint - and the longer it stays on, the worse it will be. Difficult to defend doing something like this with a muck spreader, given the length of tractor and tank, and the fact that it's spraying out behind.
I would have been tempted to put a lock on the field gate (if that was possible) and make them wait to get their car back.
,Could also be tricky if it was a farm worker - the liability for any damage may lie with the farmer.
I would have been tempted to put a lock on the field gate (if that was possible) and make them wait to get their car back.
,Could also be tricky if it was a farm worker - the liability for any damage may lie with the farmer.
Having videoed it himself, and posted it himself, I think the term that applies is "hoist by [his] own petard".
If there is any damage to the vehicle I would expect that it would be deemed malicious purely by virtue of the video and running commentary, so would probably meet the standard required for criminal damage. At the very least I expect he'll be getting the bill for it...
If there is any damage to the vehicle I would expect that it would be deemed malicious purely by virtue of the video and running commentary, so would probably meet the standard required for criminal damage. At the very least I expect he'll be getting the bill for it...
alabbasi said:
He was working his land, I see no reason for why he needed to stop because some prick decided to park a car on his property.
He should probably not have filmed it, then he can plead ignorance along with the driver whom I expect will claim to be an innocent victim
The video is largely a direct contradiction to your first statement; and there's no "probably" about it. If he wanted to try and pretend it was done whilst working his land (bearing in mind the range of that spreader, he didn't need to be that far over for any purpose other than to coat the car!) the last thing he needed to do was stop to get his camera out and video it.He should probably not have filmed it, then he can plead ignorance along with the driver whom I expect will claim to be an innocent victim
bristolracer said:
Supposing the farmer had simply locked the gate, some of these fields are miles away from the farms these days. If the farmer had been evasive it could take days to get his car out.
It is however the right way to deal with it; although securing it first is probably the best course of action to avoid it altogether.I might suggest that if the mess is handled as an insurance claim then he's just invited it to become a non-fault one (for the car driver) through his own desire to be a celebrity.
Pegscratch said:
The video is largely a direct contradiction to your first statement; and there's no "probably" about it. If he wanted to try and pretend it was done whilst working his land (bearing in mind the range of that spreader, he didn't need to be that far over for any purpose other than to coat the car!) the last thing he needed to do was stop to get his camera out and video it.
No, he was working his land and was spreading slurry all the way up to the hedge Had only sprayed the car and nothing else, then he was targeting the car. Not that I give a s
t, the owner got what he deserved.The CPS guidance regarding criminal damage states that the damage need not be permanent and that actions which cause only temporary loss of usefulness or value can constitute criminal damage.
It also sets out that the offence can be committed were there is a reckless act even though there may be no intention to cause damage.
Cat
It also sets out that the offence can be committed were there is a reckless act even though there may be no intention to cause damage.
Cat
There is a decision, going back a few weeks now, that might help.
A Luddite, having had colleagues suffer severe punishment for breaking looms, hid a key to some part of the mechanism. There was no 'damage' as such as all the owner had to do was find the key. The delay was what cost the chap. It wasn't theft (at least then) as there was no intent to permanently deprive. They ran with crimdam as it was 'damaged' to the extent that it could not be used until some sort of action was taken by the owner. Guilty and transportation.
We used to use this case when prosecuting those who put ring-pulls into parking meters. It was challenged, went to appeal (not one of my cases) and my lords found for the prosecution. The woman was not transported.
A Luddite, having had colleagues suffer severe punishment for breaking looms, hid a key to some part of the mechanism. There was no 'damage' as such as all the owner had to do was find the key. The delay was what cost the chap. It wasn't theft (at least then) as there was no intent to permanently deprive. They ran with crimdam as it was 'damaged' to the extent that it could not be used until some sort of action was taken by the owner. Guilty and transportation.
We used to use this case when prosecuting those who put ring-pulls into parking meters. It was challenged, went to appeal (not one of my cases) and my lords found for the prosecution. The woman was not transported.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff