Is moronic behaviour a criminal offence?
Discussion
A local filling station had a fire break out on the (extensive) forecourt on Saturday, while a customer was filling up.
Staff rushed out, but the driver had already grabbed an extinguisher off the pump island and the fire was out - all they had to do was throw sand on a small pool of fuel and foam on the ground.
The driver and passengers claimed they had no idea what caused the fire to start, but while one employee was checking around the back of the pump island, he overheard the driver tell a passenger that he warned him that flicking a lighter was foolish.
Staff reviewed the CCTV footage and sure enough, you could see a hand come out the passenger window with what looked like a lighter, so they called the police.
The youth admitted to the police that he HAD flicked his lighter out of the window so he got a verbal dressing down - then the police left, saying that no offence had been committed.
The only damage was superficial to the vehicle, and drivers clothing - the pump head and panelling were undamaged, so the only cost was the Fire Extinguisher refill... and staff time. Other pump users had their transactions frozen when the master cut off was triggered and none of them wanted to hang around to continue filling up!
So is it true that there was no specific offence committed, given the recklessness and risk to life?
Staff rushed out, but the driver had already grabbed an extinguisher off the pump island and the fire was out - all they had to do was throw sand on a small pool of fuel and foam on the ground.
The driver and passengers claimed they had no idea what caused the fire to start, but while one employee was checking around the back of the pump island, he overheard the driver tell a passenger that he warned him that flicking a lighter was foolish.
Staff reviewed the CCTV footage and sure enough, you could see a hand come out the passenger window with what looked like a lighter, so they called the police.
The youth admitted to the police that he HAD flicked his lighter out of the window so he got a verbal dressing down - then the police left, saying that no offence had been committed.
The only damage was superficial to the vehicle, and drivers clothing - the pump head and panelling were undamaged, so the only cost was the Fire Extinguisher refill... and staff time. Other pump users had their transactions frozen when the master cut off was triggered and none of them wanted to hang around to continue filling up!
So is it true that there was no specific offence committed, given the recklessness and risk to life?
Mill Wheel said:
A local filling station had a fire break out on the (extensive) forecourt on Saturday, while a customer was filling up.
Staff rushed out, but the driver had already grabbed an extinguisher off the pump island and the fire was out - all they had to do was throw sand on a small pool of fuel and foam on the ground.
The driver and passengers claimed they had no idea what caused the fire to start, but while one employee was checking around the back of the pump island, he overheard the driver tell a passenger that he warned him that flicking a lighter was foolish.
Staff reviewed the CCTV footage and sure enough, you could see a hand come out the passenger window with what looked like a lighter, so they called the police.
The youth admitted to the police that he HAD flicked his lighter out of the window so he got a verbal dressing down - then the police left, saying that no offence had been committed.
The only damage was superficial to the vehicle, and drivers clothing - the pump head and panelling were undamaged, so the only cost was the Fire Extinguisher refill... and staff time. Other pump users had their transactions frozen when the master cut off was triggered and none of them wanted to hang around to continue filling up!
So is it true that there was no specific offence committed, given the recklessness and risk to life?
The offence you are, I think, considering is criminal damage. This is aggravated, ie gains a higher tariff of punishment, because it was damage by fire.Staff rushed out, but the driver had already grabbed an extinguisher off the pump island and the fire was out - all they had to do was throw sand on a small pool of fuel and foam on the ground.
The driver and passengers claimed they had no idea what caused the fire to start, but while one employee was checking around the back of the pump island, he overheard the driver tell a passenger that he warned him that flicking a lighter was foolish.
Staff reviewed the CCTV footage and sure enough, you could see a hand come out the passenger window with what looked like a lighter, so they called the police.
The youth admitted to the police that he HAD flicked his lighter out of the window so he got a verbal dressing down - then the police left, saying that no offence had been committed.
The only damage was superficial to the vehicle, and drivers clothing - the pump head and panelling were undamaged, so the only cost was the Fire Extinguisher refill... and staff time. Other pump users had their transactions frozen when the master cut off was triggered and none of them wanted to hang around to continue filling up!
So is it true that there was no specific offence committed, given the recklessness and risk to life?
To be guilty of criminal damage you must damage the property of another.
So the question is whether there was damage to property belonging to another. Let's ignore the minor damage to the driver's clothing on the (reasonable?) assumption that there would be no complaint from him.
I don't want to appear petty, but there was a spate of drivers deliberately sticking bent coins and ring pulls into parking metres which cause the spring to wind down. The warden would have to open said metre, remove item and wind up the damn thing to get it back operating again. There was no physical damage to the metre nor its mechanism. After some searching we found a stated case where Luddites had done something similar, changing the mechanism of machines and then hiding the key required to get the machine running again.
The decision was that damage included an item being rendered unusable, or its appearance changed. So it was criminal damage.
If work was required from the staff to ensure the forecourt was returned to its original state, then there is a case for criminal damage by fire, which is charged as arson. This carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
All things considered, a telling off is probably the most cost effective resolution. It is probably what my choice would have been.
Derek Smith said:
The offence you are, I think, considering is criminal damage. This is aggravated, ie gains a higher tariff of punishment, because it was damage by fire.
To be guilty of criminal damage you must damage the property of another.
So the question is whether there was damage to property belonging to another. Let's ignore the minor damage to the driver's clothing on the (reasonable?) assumption that there would be no complaint from him.
Would challenged the bit about damage the property of another. As I understood it if its aggravated/arson it can be your own items being damaged.To be guilty of criminal damage you must damage the property of another.
So the question is whether there was damage to property belonging to another. Let's ignore the minor damage to the driver's clothing on the (reasonable?) assumption that there would be no complaint from him.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/criminal_damage...
For offences involving "simple arson" the property of another must be damaged. For the aggravated offence in Section 1(2), (arson) it can be any property, including the defendant's own.
so he has damaged the car and clothing and could be charged with aggravated criminal damage (arson)
This covers the situation where someone tries to set fire (or reckless) to something and fails - which is in the case here I would have thought,
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 12th December 10:17
rgf100 said:
I'd think that's reckless to the point he'd have been held culpable if there'd been any serious consequences. But on the assumption it's a one-off act by a moron, with no serious damage done, it's hard to see what public benefit there'd have been in pursuing it.
I would disagree - see my post above.He has failed to set alight the garage. He tried to but failed. Bit like attempted murder - I presume you would still want someone charged with attempted murder if they tried but failed to kill you? Same here with Arson - he tried and failed he still damaged some property even his own which then qualifies for the Criminal damage and aggravated (arson)
superlightr said:
rgf100 said:
I'd think that's reckless to the point he'd have been held culpable if there'd been any serious consequences. But on the assumption it's a one-off act by a moron, with no serious damage done, it's hard to see what public benefit there'd have been in pursuing it.
I would disagree - see my post above.He has failed to set alight the garage. He tried to but failed. Bit like attempted murder - I presume you would still want someone charged with attempted murder if they tried but failed to kill you? Same here with Arson - he tried and failed he still damaged some property even his own which then qualifies for the Criminal damage and aggravated (arson)
Stout99 said:
superlightr said:
rgf100 said:
I'd think that's reckless to the point he'd have been held culpable if there'd been any serious consequences. But on the assumption it's a one-off act by a moron, with no serious damage done, it's hard to see what public benefit there'd have been in pursuing it.
I would disagree - see my post above.He has failed to set alight the garage. He tried to but failed. Bit like attempted murder - I presume you would still want someone charged with attempted murder if they tried but failed to kill you? Same here with Arson - he tried and failed he still damaged some property even his own which then qualifies for the Criminal damage and aggravated (arson)
Yeah. He's not set out to burn the place down, so there's no intent. That doesn't mean he's not potentially culpable, and don't get me wrong, he's a moron and I'd lose no sleep if they had him up in court on whatever would stick. But if the police there have had a word and decided a b
king fits, that'll do.
king fits, that'll do. love the way of you are both ^^ thinking but its not correct. Have a read of the criteria regarding the Act. - I posted it above. how strange? amazing eh? 
He was reckless which is part of the offence. He decided to get a lighter out of his pocket, click and ignite the lighter on purpose, commanded his arm to open the window/door, use his eyes to have a look perhaps pause and still decided to continue on his actions by throwing the naked flaming lighter out of the window in a petrol station. Sounds pretty reckless to me.
He was reckless which is part of the offence. He decided to get a lighter out of his pocket, click and ignite the lighter on purpose, commanded his arm to open the window/door, use his eyes to have a look perhaps pause and still decided to continue on his actions by throwing the naked flaming lighter out of the window in a petrol station. Sounds pretty reckless to me.
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 12th December 12:00
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 12th December 12:01
rgf100 said:
Yeah. He's not set out to burn the place down, so there's no intent.
Not quite.Crim Dam is a bit of a strange one - there does not always have to be intent.
If a person is reckless as to whether property would be damaged or destroyed the offence is complete.
See Criminal Damage Act 1971.
I'd agree with that (although don't see he chucked the lighter out of the window, just waved it about?). He was reckless, he has probably committed some offence or other, and I'd happily see him in court for that. However the police can't get everyone up in court, and if they've told him he's a moron, don't do it again, fair enough. I'd imagine they make similar decisions over and over again.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff