The defendant appealed against a sentence of six years imprisonment for arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered. He had set fire to his flat in a tower block. The neighbour was an elderly housebound lady. The offence was very serious, but nobody was hurt, and the sentence was out of line with … Continue reading Regina v Hawkins: CACD 22 Apr 1998
Citations: [2011] EWCA Crim 1309 Links: Bailii Statutes: Criminal Damage Act 1971 1(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Crime Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.440337
The defendant was charged with criminal damage by setting fire to a building. It was owned by a company which in turn he owned. Held: There is nothing unlawful about destroying one’s own property Judges: Lord Lane LCJ, Mustill, McCullough JJ Citations: [1982] 1 All ER 65, [1981] 1 WLR 1446, [1981] EWCA Crim 4 … Continue reading Regina v Denton: CACD 22 Oct 1981
Malcom had thrown petrol bombs at the outside wall of the bedroom of a girl who he believed had informed on him in relation to a series of burglaries. He had admitted throwing the bombs but claimed he had done so to frighten the girl and without realising that if a bomb had gone through … Continue reading Regina v Stephen Malcolm R: 1984
The respondent went to the house of a partner with whom he had a dispute, and fired three shots into the house. Nobody was injured. He had successfully appealed a conviction for criminal damage being reckless as to whether somebody else’s life should be endangered, having argued that any threat to life did not arise … Continue reading Regina v Steer: HL 2 Jul 1986
The defendant got drunk and set fire to the hotel where he worked. Guests were present. He was indicted upon two counts of arson. He pleaded guilty to the 1(1) count but contested the 1(2) charge, saying he was so drunk that the thought there might be people never crossed his mind. Setting aside his … Continue reading Commissioner of Police v Caldwell: HL 19 Mar 1981
The 15 year old defendant appealed his conviction on the basis of recklessness, challenging, unsuccessfully, the rule in Caldwell. Held: Because recklessness was to be judged by the standard of the reasonable prudent man, expert evidence of the defendant’s capacity to foresee the risks which would arise from his setting fire to hay in a … Continue reading Regina v Coles: CACD 1995
The defendants were children accused of arson being reckless as to the danger of damage. They were not entitled to require the jury to consider as a separate question whether the risk of damage was obvious other than to an ordinary adult. Held: The question at issue was substantial, as to the mens rea and … Continue reading Regina v G and R: CACD 17 Jul 2002
The defendant sought to sleep in a hollow in a haystack. He lit a fire, to keep warm, which set fire to the stack. He appealed against his conviction under the 1971 Act. He had a long history of schizophrenia and may not have had the same ability to foresee or appreciate risks as the … Continue reading Regina v Stephenson: CACD 1979
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held (Majority): The appeal succeeded, and the judge’s order allowing the evidence to be … Continue reading Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd: HL 10 Feb 2005
The defendant, a vagrant, fell asleep in an empty house. His lighted cigarette fell onto his mattress, and a fire started. Rather than put it out, he moved to another room. He was accused of arson. Held: He was guilty. A defendant would be guilty even though he did not know he had started the … Continue reading Regina v Miller: HL 17 Mar 1982
The defendant caused damage to a car. The appeal turned on the trial judge’s direction on the meaning of ‘reckless’. Held: The conviction was set aside. The judge had not adequately explained that the test to be applied was that of the defendant’s state of mind. ‘A man is reckless in the sense required when … Continue reading Regina v Briggs (Note): CACD 1977
A 14-year old girl of low intelligence entered a shed, poured white spirit on the floor and set it alight. The fire destroyed the shed after she left. The allegation was that she was reckless. The justices applied Caldwell but inferred that in his reference to ‘an obvious risk’ Lord Diplock had meant a risk … Continue reading Elliott v C: 1983
The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the defendant had given no thought to a risk of damage, but … Continue reading Regina v G and R: HL 16 Oct 2003
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more … Continue reading Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005
In a temper the defendant broke a telephone by smashing the handset violently down on to the telephone unit. Held: Applying but modifying Briggs, the defendant had been fully aware of all the circumstances and, if ‘he did not know, as he said he did not, that there was some risk of damage, he was, … Continue reading Regina v Parker (Daryl): CACD 1977
Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about twenty minutes or more before being allowed to continue. An authorisation had been granted by an … Continue reading Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another: HL 8 Mar 2006
The defendant broke two windows and damaged a curtain in the house of a stranger. She was drunk. She was charged under the 1971 Act, but she raised her honest but drunken and mistaken belief that the house belonged to a friend who would have consented to her breaking in and causing damage having told … Continue reading Jaggard v Dickinson: QBD 1980
In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A . .
