Is wiping crap on a car a crime?

Is wiping crap on a car a crime?

Author
Discussion

Futuramic

1,763 posts

204 months

Monday 18th June 2012
quotequote all
BlackVanDyke said:
DaveH23 said:
So driving along a dirty road is criminal damage if you have to wash your car aswell (exact same 'fix')

As I mentioned I hope the scrote is caught but I really do not agree that this is classed as damage.
Surely it's the intent that's relevant - doing something with the purpose of making it unusable?
Actually criminal damage is one of the few "proper" summary only offences dealt with by ordinary police officers. The others are mainly motoring related or minor stuff like littering; anyhow criminal damage in its simple form ie not aggravated, endangering life or valued at over £5000 is summary only. This means that it can only be tried in a Magistrates' Court, carries a maximum penalty of six months and does not fall under the Criminal Attempts Act. This is key.

Most offences can be attempted, that it as soon as one forms the intention (mens rea) and carries out an act more than merely preparatory to the offence (actus reus) then they are guilty. As criminal damage does not fall under this act, it cannot be attempted under law. Of course one could attempt to damage something and fail, but that would not be a crime.

Thus in order to class as a crime the offence has to be fully completed, that is damage must be caused to another's property without lawful excuse or permission. Thus what constitutes damage is the subject of much case law. As has been stated the old case of spit on a raincoat was not deemed criminal as it could simply be wiped off.

More relevant would be Morphitis Vs Salmon (1990) in which a scratch on a scaffolding pole was not deemed to be criminal damage as it did not affect the value, appearance or durability of said item. The case, presumably, hinged upon the hypothesis that a scaffolding pole would pick scratches in normal use.

However the more modern approach is applying the tests of cost and effort. Take the spit on a raincoat example. It could be wiped off. Minimum effort and no cost. Consider, though, spitting on a tray of surgical instruments. Exactly the same action, but the tools would have to be properly cleaned and sterilised afterwards. This would incur both cost and effort, so more likely to be judged a crime. The point is the owner must expend more than minimum cost and time in rectifying the situation.

Going back to the beshattered Lotus. The owner has incurred a financial cost: hot water and soap; and also has expended effort cleaning the car. In simple terms criminal damage has been committed.

The following are real examples I have either dealt with or had some involvement in:

1) A man was concerned that neighbourhood cats were scratching his car by climbing on it. In order to repel them he filled two lunchboxes with water and mixed spices (no really) and placed them on the roof. He called the police after discovering the lunchboxes had been overturned and the water spilt down the sides of the car.

No offence: firstly it was impossible to prove human involvement. The lunchboxes could simply have been blown off in the wind or knocked over by the very same cats that caused the trouble in the first place. The water and spice mixture left a slight sticky residue that was easily rinsed off

2) A man called the police after someone cut through a piece of string used to hold back a bush in his front garden. The bush flopped on to the pavement. Whoever went round tied the string back together and left. Man was happy. It happened again the next week however this time the string was left frayed.

Offence: the damage ie the bush flopping on to the pavement, could not be repaired without expenditure - a new piece of string. Recorded as a crime.

3) A boy kicked a car wing mirror causing the plastic trim cover bit to fall off. He was identified by a witness, not the car owner who wasn't there. The car owner found the trim piece and took it and the car to a local garage. The friendly mechanic re-fitted it to the original standard and did not charge the car owner.

No offence: even though the intention to damage the car was clear, the offence was never fully completed as the owner was able to rectify the situation with minimum effort (driving a mile or so) and no cost.

CharlieTwo

740 posts

208 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
Futuramic said:
...anyhow criminal damage in its simple form ie not aggravated, endangering life or valued at over £5000 is summary only. This means that it can only be tried in a Magistrates' Court, carries a maximum penalty of six months and does not fall under the Criminal Attempts Act.
...
As criminal damage does not fall under this act, it cannot be attempted under law. Of course one could attempt to damage something and fail, but that would not be a crime.
Sorry, but no. Criminal Damage can be attempted, regardless of the value of damage that would be caused.

Section 4 Criminal Damage Act 1971 makes the maximum punishment for arson or arson/damage with intent/reckless as to the endangerment of life as life imprisonment, and for

S4 Criminal Damage Act 1971 said:
any other offence under this Act shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Non-aggravated not by fire S1(1) Damage is still an either-way offence. It can be tried on indictment or summarily. However, if the value is < £5000 Section 22 Magistrates Courts Act 1980 with Schedule 2 to the same restricts prosecutions for a straight damage, attempt/incite damage and aid/abet/counsel/procure a straight damage to summary only.

That doesn't stop straightforward criminal damage being an either-way offence and under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the fact it is an either-way offence (restricted on mode of trial by the Magistrates Courts Act) doesn't prevent an attempt being an offence created by the Criminal Attempts Act.

shunaphil

440 posts

142 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
.....
One of the consequences of this has been the problem with drivers who have stopped at the side of the road to use their mobile phones. They assumed, using the normal interpretation of the word, that they were not driving. They obviously were not driving, they were parked. Their engines were off. Their handbrakes were on. They were not driving. Except in the eyes of the law of course, with their unique interpretation of the word driving. I've been approached by a neighbour who had been thus stopped. When I told him that even if he'd got out of his car and sat on a wall on the side of the road he was still driving his response supported my view that the legal definition of driving is not that used by drivers.
Hang on - so you are telling me that if I drive from my home in scotland to my parents home in Bedfordshire that is one journey, and if I use my mobile phone at any point on that 'journey' - ie when I am in a service station, car parked, I am sitting on the bonnet say (or an adjacent wall) - I am guilty of an offence?

And everyone else (apart from those who work there) at the services.

And every police officer in the land who uses mobiles whilst sitting in their car (ignition off)?

I accept your other points, and extensive experience, but this seems utter tosh.

In my example above I would happily defend in court with it (and not just take the points) and expect to get off.

Tyrewrecker

6,419 posts

153 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
shunaphil said:
Hang on - so you are telling me that if I drive from my home in scotland to my parents home in Bedfordshire that is one journey, and if I use my mobile phone at any point on that 'journey' - ie when I am in a service station, car parked, I am sitting on the bonnet say (or an adjacent wall) - I am guilty of an offence?

And everyone else (apart from those who work there) at the services.

And every police officer in the land who uses mobiles whilst sitting in their car (ignition off)?

I accept your other points, and extensive experience, but this seems utter tosh.

In my example above I would happily defend in court with it (and not just take the points) and expect to get off.
Surely cannot be true. This argument has been done to death. No common sense anymore eh

Pommygranite

14,229 posts

215 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
Your tenant was Danny Bahar wasn't it?

7db

6,058 posts

229 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
Has your tenant claimed that his turd was devalued by having a Lotus smeared on it?

carinaman

21,214 posts

171 months

Wednesday 20th June 2012
quotequote all
So what constitutes driving is why that Fireman was charged and his DNA taken:

http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2009/10/fir...

Despite the new law on DNA retention, many constabularies haven't deleted the records of those they shouldn't have have they?


So if you're dogging or using the services of a prostitute in a parked car is that also classed as driving?