Criminal damage - Aggravated criminal damage

Learning Outcomes

This article details the offence of aggravated criminal damage under s 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. It distinguishes this offence from simple criminal damage (s 1(1)). For the SQE1 assessments, you will need to understand the actus reus and mens rea elements specific to aggravated criminal damage, particularly the requirement of endangering life, and how this differs from simple criminal damage concerning property ownership and lawful excuse. Your understanding will enable you to apply the relevant legal principles to SQE1-style single best answer questions.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the elements of aggravated criminal damage and how it contrasts with simple criminal damage. You will likely need to identify the correct offence based on a factual scenario, focusing on the endangerment to life aspect and the relevant mental state.

As you work through this article, remember to pay particular attention in your revision to:

  • the specific actus reus elements of aggravated criminal damage, including the destruction or damage of property and the endangerment of life
  • the mens rea requirements for aggravated criminal damage, covering both the damage/destruction and the endangerment to life (intention or recklessness)
  • the key differences between simple criminal damage (s 1(1)) and aggravated criminal damage (s 1(2)), particularly regarding property ownership and the availability of the lawful excuse defence
  • how the endangerment to life must arise from the damage or destruction itself.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

  1. Which of the following statements regarding aggravated criminal damage under s 1(2) CDA 1971 is correct?
    1. The property damaged must belong to another person.
    2. The defendant must intend to endanger life; recklessness is insufficient.
    3. Endangerment to life must actually occur for the offence to be committed.
    4. The defendant must intend or be reckless as to endangering life by the damage or destruction caused.

  2. True or false? The defence of lawful excuse under s 5 CDA 1971 applies to aggravated criminal damage.

  3. According to R v Steer, when considering aggravated criminal damage, the danger to life must arise from:
    1. The act which causes the damage.
    2. The damaged property itself.
    3. The defendant's motive.
    4. The presence of the victim near the damaged property.

Introduction

Criminal damage offences cover a spectrum of severity. While simple criminal damage under s 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA 1971) addresses the basic act of damaging property belonging to another, aggravated criminal damage under s 1(2) introduces a more serious dimension: the endangerment of life. Understanding the specific elements and distinctions of aggravated criminal damage is essential for SQE1. This offence carries a higher maximum penalty (life imprisonment) reflecting the increased risk posed by the defendant's actions.

Aggravated Criminal Damage: Section 1(2) CDA 1971

The offence of aggravated criminal damage is defined in s 1(2) CDA 1971:

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another— (a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and (b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered; shall be guilty of an offence.

This section creates a more serious offence than simple criminal damage under s 1(1), primarily due to the element of endangering life.

Actus Reus

The actus reus of aggravated criminal damage consists of two main components:

  1. Destroying or damaging property: This element is the same as for simple criminal damage. The terms 'destroy' and 'damage' are interpreted according to their ordinary meanings and include permanent or temporary physical harm, or impairment of value or usefulness. Whether damage has occurred is a question of fact and degree.
  2. Endangering the life of another: This is the key distinguishing feature. The damage or destruction caused by the defendant must endanger the life of another person.

Property Ownership

A key difference from simple criminal damage (s 1(1)) is that for the aggravated offence under s 1(2), the property damaged can belong to the defendant themself or to another person. The focus shifts from property rights to the risk posed to human life.

Endangerment to Life

Key Term: endangering life For aggravated criminal damage, this means creating a risk or danger to the life of another person through the damage or destruction of property. Actual endangerment is not required; the focus is on the potential risk created by the damage itself.

The endangerment must arise from the damage or destruction caused, not merely from the act which caused the damage.

Worked Example 1.1

Ahmed throws a brick at Chen's house window, intending to break it. Chen is standing just inside the window. The brick smashes the window, but the flying glass narrowly misses Chen. Ahmed knew Chen was inside and foresaw a risk that the broken glass might hit and injure Chen, potentially endangering his life.

Is Ahmed potentially liable for aggravated criminal damage?

Answer: Yes, potentially. Ahmed intentionally damaged property (the window). The question is whether he intended or was reckless as to endangering Chen's life by the damage (the broken glass). If the flying shards of glass posed a danger to Chen's life, and Ahmed intended or was reckless as to this specific danger from the broken glass, the offence could be made out. If the danger was only from the brick itself, it would not satisfy the test from R v Steer.

This principle was established in R v Steer [1988] AC 111. The defendant fired shots through a window. The danger to life came from the bullets, not the broken glass. The House of Lords held this was not aggravated criminal damage because the danger to life must arise from the damage caused to the property.

Contrast this with R v Webster [1995] 2 All ER 168, where pushing a stone onto a train roof, causing the roof to collapse and endanger passengers, was aggravated criminal damage because the danger arose from the damaged roof.

Mens Rea

Aggravated criminal damage requires a 'double' mens rea:

  1. Intention or recklessness as to destroying or damaging property: This is the same mens rea as for simple criminal damage. The defendant must intend the damage/destruction or be subjectively reckless (aware of a risk and unreasonably taking it) as to causing it.
  2. Intention or recklessness as to endangering the life of another by the damage or destruction: The defendant must intend to endanger life through the damage/destruction, or be subjectively reckless as to whether life would be endangered by the damage/destruction.

It is essential that the second limb of the mens rea relates specifically to endangerment by the damage, aligning with the actus reus requirement established in Steer. Foreseeing a risk of endangerment from the act causing the damage (e.g., firing a gun) is not sufficient.

Lawful Excuse Defence

The specific lawful excuse defences available under s 5 CDA 1971 for simple criminal damage (belief in consent or acting to protect property) do not apply to the aggravated offence under s 1(2). This is because the presence of intention or recklessness as to endangering life negates the possibility of such an excuse being genuinely held or legally valid in this context.

However, general defences (like self-defence, duress) may still be available if the circumstances permit.

Aggravated Arson

Section 1(3) CDA 1971 states that an offence under s 1(1) or s 1(2) committed by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.

Therefore, if the elements of aggravated criminal damage under s 1(2) are satisfied, and the damage or destruction was caused by fire, the offence is aggravated arson. The actus reus and mens rea requirements are the same as for aggravated criminal damage, but with the additional element that the damage/destruction must be caused by fire, and the defendant must have the corresponding mens rea (intention or recklessness) as to causing damage/destruction by fire.

Exam Warning

A common point of confusion relates to the source of the endangerment. Remember the principle from R v Steer: the danger to life must arise from the damaged property itself, not the initial act causing the damage. For example, if D shoots at a door knowing V is behind it, the danger is from the bullet (the act), not the damaged door. This would not be aggravated criminal damage. However, if D damages wiring knowing it could cause a fire or electrocution, the danger arises from the damaged wiring, potentially satisfying the test.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

  • Aggravated criminal damage under s 1(2) CDA 1971 requires destroying or damaging property (actus reus) with the intention or recklessness as to both the damage/destruction AND endangering the life of another by that damage/destruction (mens rea).
  • Unlike simple criminal damage, the property damaged can belong to the defendant or another person.
  • The endangerment to life must arise from the damaged property itself, not the act causing the damage (R v Steer).
  • Actual endangerment to life is not required; intention or recklessness regarding the risk of endangerment is sufficient.
  • The statutory lawful excuse defences under s 5 CDA 1971 (belief in consent, protection of property) are NOT available for aggravated criminal damage.
  • If aggravated criminal damage is committed by fire, the offence is aggravated arson (s 1(2) and s 1(3) CDA 1971).

Key Terms and Concepts

  • endangering life
The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Barbri SQE
One-time Fee
$3,800-6,900
BPP SQE
One-time Fee
$5,400-8,200
College of Legal P...
One-time Fee
$2,300-9,100
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Law Training Centr...
One-time Fee
$500-6,200
QLTS SQE
One-time Fee
$2,500-3,800
University of Law...
One-time Fee
$6,200-22,400

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal