Introduction
Defences to criminal damage under UK law are legal justifications or excuses that negate liability for acts that would otherwise constitute offences. The primary defences include lawful excuse, self-defence, necessity, duress, and automatism. Each defence has specific criteria rooted in statutory provisions and common law principles. Understanding these defences involves analyzing their legal foundations, key requirements, and how they interact within the broader context of criminal liability.
Lawful Excuse
Lawful excuse is established under Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This defence allows a person to avoid criminal liability if they had a genuine belief that they had the owner's consent to damage the property, or if they acted to protect property in immediate need of protection.
Genuine Belief in Consent
Under Section 5(2)(a), a person is not guilty of criminal damage if they believed that the person entitled to consent to the damage had consented or would have consented if they had known the circumstances. The belief does not need to be reasonable; it must simply be genuine. In the case of Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] QB 527, the defendant, while intoxicated, mistakenly believed she had her friend's permission to break into what she thought was her friend's house. The court held that her honest belief, though mistaken, provided a lawful excuse.
Protecting Property
Section 5(2)(b) provides a defence when a person damages property to protect other property that they believe is in immediate need of protection. The actions taken must be reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. For example, if a person breaks down a door to extinguish a fire they believe threatens neighboring properties, this may constitute a lawful excuse.
Practical Example
Consider a scenario where heavy rain threatens to flood a neighborhood. A resident breaks a hole in a barrier to divert the water flow away from homes. They genuinely believe this action is necessary to protect property from immediate damage. Here, the defence of lawful excuse could apply, as the resident acted out of a genuine belief to prevent greater harm.
Self-Defence
Self-defence permits the use of reasonable force to protect oneself, others, or property from an immediate threat. It is recognized both in common law and under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
Use of Reasonable Force
The key element is the reasonableness of the force used, which is assessed both subjectively and objectively. The defendant must honestly believe that the use of force was necessary, and the force applied must be proportionate to the perceived threat. The case of R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987] 3 All ER 411 highlighted that a defendant's honest belief, even if mistaken, can justify the use of force in self-defence.
Defence of Property
Self-defence extends to the protection of property. For instance, a shop owner who damages a thief's getaway vehicle to prevent theft may invoke self-defence, provided the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.
Practical Example
Consider a homeowner who discovers an intruder attempting to steal valuable items. Acting swiftly, the homeowner locks the intruder in a room, causing damage to the door. Believing there is an immediate threat to their property, the homeowner's actions may be justified under self-defence, as they used reasonable force to prevent a crime.
Necessity
Necessity involves committing an act to prevent a greater harm, acting as a justification for what would otherwise be unlawful conduct. It is a narrowly applied defence with strict criteria.
Criteria for Necessity
To successfully argue necessity, the following conditions must typically be met:
- Imminent Danger: There was an immediate threat of significant harm.
- Reasonable Action: The defendant's conduct was reasonable and proportionate to avert the harm.
- No Legal Alternative: There were no lawful means to avoid the danger.
- Direct Causation: The defendant's actions directly prevented the greater harm.
Case Law
In Re A (Conjoined Twins) [2001] 2 WLR 480, the court permitted the surgical separation of conjoined twins, which would result in the death of one to save the other. The decision was based on the necessity to prevent the greater harm of losing both twins.
Practical Example
Suppose a hiker becomes trapped in a remote area and, to survive, breaks into a cabin to seek shelter and prevent exposure to life-threatening weather. Here, the defence of necessity might apply, as the hiker acted to prevent imminent harm, and there was no legal alternative available.
Duress
Duress arises when a person commits an offence because they are compelled to do so by threats of death or serious injury. It acknowledges that the defendant's will was overborne by the coercion of another.
Elements of Duress
To establish duress, the defendant must demonstrate:
- Threat of Death or Serious Injury: The threat must be of such gravity to overbear the ordinary powers of human resistance.
- Immediate Threat: The harm threatened must be imminent.
- No Safe Avenue of Escape: The defendant had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the threat.
- Connection to the Offence: The threats must be directly linked to the crime committed.
- Reasonable Firmness: A person of reasonable firmness sharing the defendant's characteristics would have acted similarly.
Case Law
In R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22, it was held that the defence of duress is not available if the defendant voluntarily associates with criminals and foresaw or ought to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to compulsion.
Practical Example
Envision a delivery driver coerced by armed robbers to crash his truck into a security barrier to facilitate their escape. Fearing immediate harm, and with no chance to alert authorities, the driver complies. Duress may be a defence, as the driver acted under threat of serious injury with no safe way to avoid the situation.
Automatism
Automatism refers to actions performed by an individual who lacks conscious control over their bodily movements, resulting in involuntary conduct.
Types of Automatism
- Sane Automatism: Caused by an external factor leading to a temporary loss of control (e.g., a blow to the head, the effect of a drug).
- Insane Automatism: Originates from an internal condition, such as a disease of the mind, leading to a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity."
Requirements for Sane Automatism
To successfully claim sane automatism, the defendant must show:
- Involuntary Act: The act was done without control of the mind.
- External Factor: The loss of control was caused by an external influence.
- Not Self-Induced: The state was not the result of voluntary intoxication or recklessness.
Case Law
In R v Quick [1973] QB 910, a nurse with diabetes experienced hypoglycaemia after taking insulin and not eating adequately. He assaulted a patient during this state. The court held that his condition was caused by an external factor (insulin), qualifying for sane automatism.
Practical Example
Think of someone who, without warning, suffers a severe allergic reaction to a prescribed medication, resulting in fainting and, while unconscious, knocks over valuable property. If the reaction was unforeseen, automatism could serve as a defence, as the act was involuntary and caused by an external factor.
Conclusion
Automatism presents complex challenges in criminal law, particularly in distinguishing between involuntary actions caused by external factors and those stemming from internal conditions. It requires careful examination of the defendant's state of mind and the cause of their actions. The interplay between automatism and other defences highlights the complexities of legal responsibility.
Key principles across the defences focus on the balance between the defendant's subjective beliefs and the objective reasonableness of their actions. Lawful excuse emphasizes genuine belief in consent or necessity to protect property. Self-defence and necessity both involve acting to prevent harm, but they differ in context and application. Duress recognizes situations where the defendant's free will is overridden by threats, provided stringent conditions are met.
These defences can intersect in complex legal scenarios. A person who damages property under threat may invoke duress, while also considering aspects of necessity if they aimed to prevent greater harm. The legal requirements for each defence demand precise application, as established in cases such as R v Hasan for duress and Jaggard v Dickinson for lawful excuse.
Understanding these defences involves not only knowing their individual criteria but also appreciating how they interact within the legal system. This comprehensive approach ensures accurate assessment of criminal liability where defences to criminal damage are concerned.
