The question above calls for the detailed analysis of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, hereby as, CDA 1971, and how it is to be applied at situation which involve property damage and punishments for the required act. Further discussion would also include the situation where a threat is used to destroy property damage according to the CDA 1971. In order to apply the CDA 1971, we need to know, what criminal damage actually means. Criminal damage is any damage which has been caused by an individual to some form of property. When a case is concerned with damage to property which is criminal, the case is brought by the state against that individual in a criminal court and the most common examples of criminal damage would be arson. As in the question, …show more content…
It would be dealt by section 1(2)(a) as it states that anyone would be liable of property damage if he/she intends to destroy some ones property. Here Andy had a clear intention of throwing the cup of tea on her favorite painting to upset her as she was not taking Andy’s anger seriously . Morphitis v Salmon [1990] The authority of Roper v Knott [1898] laid down the rules for property damage stating that if the defendants act decreases the value of the property after his act, then he is liable for property damage. So according to the authority stated, Andy is liable for criminal damage as the wallpaper, he threw tea on, was destroyed. The second issue is, where Andy threatens Beth that he would burn each and every copy of her book in the warehouse and no one would see that book again would be dealt with section 2(a) of CDA 1971. As s.2(a) states that a person who threats another, intending that the other would fear it and damages a property belonging to that other or a third party, in my opinion, Andy would be held liable under the specified section because Andy wanted Beth to fear him but instead she laughed which complies with s.2(a) of CRA