Cleared of causing more than £7k of damage

[ukwill]

Mr San Giorgi said he believed that since the paint could be washed off the statue, he did no damage and his actions could not be criminal as he was “preventing a crime” with his protest.

https://news.sky.com/story/man-who-vandalised-chur...


(when you're next out defacing iconic statues just make sure you use water-based spray, and stress you're sending a message to parliament )

[Foss62]

This seems quite extraordinary to me. Maybe some of the PH law community could comment?

If I were to walk down my road spraying all the cars with water-based paint, would this not be a criminal action?

[Scrimpton]

Foss62 said:

This seems quite extraordinary to me. Maybe some of the PH law community could comment?

If I were to walk down my road spraying all the cars with water-based paint, would this not be a criminal action?

It depends. If you sprayed something like "free Gaza" you'd be OK. Anything Brexity and you'd get 12 months

[98elise]

Foss62 said:

This seems quite extraordinary to me. Maybe some of the PH law community could comment?

If I were to walk down my road spraying all the cars with water-based paint, would this not be a criminal action?

I thought the ease of rectification doesn't come into it. If you have to do something to fix it, then its damage.

[mac96]

So provided the damage is repairable it is not actually damage? This makes no sense. Most damage is repairable. If I burn a house down it is repairable.

I find modern stiles of protest wierd. The point of protest is that you demonstrate the strength of your feelings by being prepared to take unpleasant consequences.

Nowadays it seems that noone wants to do that. They take the coward's route of pretending they didn't do it or making silly claims of 'justification'.

[Getragdogleg]

So littering something biodegradable is ok by this logic?

[butchstewie]

Foss62 said:

This seems quite extraordinary to me. Maybe some of the PH law community could comment?

If I were to walk down my road spraying all the cars with water-based paint, would this not be a criminal action?

I assume "cleared" means we're back to a jury verdict?

[heebeegeetee]

butchstewie said:

Foss62 said:

This seems quite extraordinary to me. Maybe some of the PH law community could comment?

If I were to walk down my road spraying all the cars with water-based paint, would this not be a criminal action?

I assume "cleared" means we're back to a jury verdict?

That was my thoughts, was this a jury verdict?

[CoolHands]

Was this another jury case failure?

Honestly juries are fking useless

[JoshSm]

Ease of rectification is meant to have nothing to do with it being considered an offense, whether it's washable paint or just something like chalk.

That's basic stuff.

[Mark V GTD]

mac96 said:

So provided the damage is repairable it is not actually damage? This makes no sense. Most damage is repairable. If I burn a house down it is repairable.

It is - so more correctly you might say 'non permanent damage' or 'repairable damage' - as its still damage.

[Bigends]

JoshSm said:

Ease of rectification is meant to have nothing to do with it being considered an offense, whether it's washable paint or just something like chalk.

That's basic stuff.

From a recording point of view if the damage can be easily rectified with minimal effort then no crime to record. Basically if a bucket of water can sort it then there's nothing to record

[PurplePenguin]

Bigends said:

JoshSm said:

Ease of rectification is meant to have nothing to do with it being considered an offense, whether it's washable paint or just something like chalk.

That's basic stuff.

From a recording point of view if the damage can be easily rectified with minimal effort then no crime to record. Basically if a bucket of water can sort it then there's nothing to record

Who pays for the cleaning?

[swisstoni]

PurplePenguin said:

Bigends said:

JoshSm said:

Ease of rectification is meant to have nothing to do with it being considered an offense, whether it's washable paint or just something like chalk.

That's basic stuff.

From a recording point of view if the damage can be easily rectified with minimal effort then no crime to record. Basically if a bucket of water can sort it then there's nothing to record

Who pays for the cleaning?

Look in the mirror.

[anonymous-user]

PurplePenguin said:

Who pays for the cleaning?

Farage, loads of spare cash floating about.

[PurplePenguin]

trails said:

PurplePenguin said:

Who pays for the cleaning?

Farage, loads of spare cash floating about.

Yawn

[CMTMB]

trails said:

PurplePenguin said:

Who pays for the cleaning?

Farage, loads of spare cash floating about.

Impressive shoehorn.

[redrabbit29]

Foss62 said:

This seems quite extraordinary to me. Maybe some of the PH law community could comment?

If I were to walk down my road spraying all the cars with water-based paint, would this not be a criminal action?

I'm an ex-officer and it goes against the stated cases for Criminal Damage. One such being the man who blocked a cell toilet causing it to overflow and flood the cell = Criminal Damage

Throwing eggs at a door as a halloween prank = Criminal Damage

In fact... my own car was "floured" and I reported it as a Criminal Damage. Mainly as it blocked all the vents, windscreen sprayers etc...

This decision is ridiculous

CoolHands said:

Was this another jury case failure?

Honestly juries are fking useless

Agree, they're often absolutely appalling and terrible. I've seen some ridiculous decisions and outcomes, with half the jury not understanding or just falling asleep and yawning.

[paulw123]

I really dispair of the justice system.

[paulw123]

Getragdogleg said:

So littering something biodegradable is ok by this logic?

Asking 'for a friend' with a load of green garden waste to get rid of...