Talk:Criminal damage in English law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Criminal damage in English law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
June 3, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.
England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Merger of Malicious Damage Act 1861

This is the first proposal of a number intended to collect the whole corpus of UK law relating to property damage in one place. I was intending to expand this article to mention briefly the common law and the MDA1861, but since the material already exists, it makes sense to me to merge, with appropriate redirects. In the particular case of the MDA1861,

  • most of it is repealed and therefore only of historical interest
  • the parts of it remaining are rarely prosecuted as such, because the CDA1971 also covers them.

This article already has an A-class rating and it is proposed to nominate for GA as soon as it is ready. Your comments would be welcome. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Since nobody objected, I have done this merge. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Criminal Damage Act 1971

I started this article (Criminal Damage in UK law) because for some reason I couldn't find the CDA 1971; so now the two exist in parallel, which is inefficient. Because of the duplication, and that this article is being nominated for Good Article status as soon as it is ready, it would make sense to have the whole corpus of UK law on property damage in one place. As before, comments are welcome; I propose that the CDA1971 article become a redirect here, with the more modern cases being merged when they amplify the topics dealt with here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

nem. con., this has now been merged and nominated for GA. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of recent edit

Just wanted to explain why I think it's best to link to the BAILII site in a reference rather than in the body of the article. If you have the name of the judgment in the body of the article, but not the full BAILII link, you have the option of wikilinking the judgment to the relevant wikipedia article, if it exists, or if you think it should exist. Otherwise, you're stuck with the external link. GDallimore (Talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to make sense, but I'm darned if I can find anything about style of case citation other than in general terms. I'm wondering what the Case citation template is actually for. This, along with a couple of other legal articles, is currently up for GA review and it would be good to get chapter and verse before someone actually reviews it. Meanwhile, this and another were recently quick-failed for GA because they lacked "Multiple independent sources". But if the only sources are (unique) law reports and (unique) statutes, online or otherwise, how can that requirement be satisfied? It is a lacuna in the GA requirement as far as I can tell. Perhaps a proposal on the Wikiproject Law page might be in order? Comments welcome. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree it's a lacuna in the GA requirements - it's more to do with Wikipedia's requirements for notability and reliability. A topic is only notable if there are multiple, non-trivial secondary-source discussions of it. It may be a sign that you're starting topics on the wrong bits of case law, or creating your own discussion on it rather than incorporating the thoughts of others, rather than a comment on the quality of the articles you're writing. Of course, I don't think that applies to this particular article where the topic is a general point of law and the secondary sources are the judgments themselves. GDallimore (Talk) 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

I have set out below the good article criteria, the extent to which they are met by this article, and comments for improving the article.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • N See the detailed comments below.
    • Y Yes.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
(c) contains no original research.
  • N The article is inadequately referenced to secondary sources, such as criminal law textbooks, and therefore appears to be the product of original research. A number of quotations are not fully referenced. See the detailed comments below.
    • See my further comments below. — JackLee, 03:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and
(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
  • Y Yes.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

  • Y Yes.

5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

  • Y Yes.

6. It is illustrated, if possible, by images.

  • Y There are currently no images in the article. The article will look better if one or two suitable images are included, but a lack of images will not prevent the article from achieving Good Article status.
Y Done - some relevant free-content images found & added

[edit] Detailed comments

[edit] General

  • The article should be renamed "Criminal damage in English law" (with a small "d"): see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles. Use the "Move" tab. Similarly, throughout the article, use "criminal damage" and not "Criminal Damage".
Y Done
  • Your citation of cases is currently rather idiosyncratic. I suggest giving the case name and year in parentheses in the main text, with the citation and link to the full text of the case (if available) in a footnote, like this: "''R v. G & Anor.'' (2003)<ref>[http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/50.html [2003] UKHL 50].</ref>".</ref> To avoid causing Wikitext problems when using square brackets to enclose the year in citations, use ASCII codes (click on the "Edit" link for this subsection to see what I did).
Y Done
  • Wherever possible, cite cases to published law reports rather than use neutral citations. However, provide a link to the full text of the decision on BAILII if available.
Y Done - not many of these cases are on BAILII
  • Many case citations lack round or square brackets around the years. Please insert them.
Y Done
  • Please provide citations for statutes and other pieces of legislation in footnote, and link the citations to the full texts of the legislation on the website of the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI), like this: "[[Theft Act 1968]]<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1978/pdf/ukpga_19780031_en.pdf 1968 c. 60].</ref>".
Y Done
  • As far as possible, when providing cites for quotations, state the page or paragraph number of the source at which the quotation can be found.
Y Done - wherever possible
  • Footnote numbers at the ends of clauses or sentences should generally appear after punctuation marks.
Y Done
  • All footnotes should end with a full stop.
Y Done
  • Leave out the "(HTML)" in footnotes.
Y Done

[edit] Lead section

  • The lead section does not really summarize the article adequately. Expand it to capture the gist of the article.
Y Done - expanded roughly to match major historical sections.

[edit] Common law

  • Indicate the year when Blackstone's statement was made to give readers an idea of how old the common law concept is.
Y Done - within limits, exact date difficult to source
  • Explain the meaning of "amotion" in the text.
Y Done - thumbnail definition, referenced
  • Provide fuller citations for websites and books that you cite. For a website, provide the name of the website's publisher so readers can decide how reliable it is. For books, use the {{cite book}} template and provide full bibliographic information (including author's name, place of publication, publisher, year of publication and ISBN number, if available).
Y Done

[edit] Early legislation

  • Explain what "machine-breaking" was.
Y Done - footnoted & linked to Luddite

[edit] Malicious Damage Act 1861

  • "victorian" → "Victorian".
Y Done
  • You shouldn't refer to "the 1971 Act" because at this point in the text you haven't yet introduced this Act. Refer to it by its full name.
Y Done
  • The relationship between ss. 35 and 36 of the 1861 Act needs to be better explained. You need to get across the idea that s. 36 is the lesser offence that punishes negligent commission of the actus reus, while s. 35 is the more serious offence where there is intent involved.
Y Done - with appropriate links
  • Section 72 of the Act requires more explanation.
Y Done - contextualised

[edit] Criminal Damage Act 1971

[edit] Definition
  • In an appropriate place, provide a full citation to the Act and a link to the full text of the Act on the OPSI website.
Y Done - it's on OPSI but only as PDF format
  • Shouldn't the quotation from s. 1(1) end in a full stop?
Y Done
  • The headings of subsections of the "Definition" section which are quotations from the definition of criminal damage should be in double quotation marks, thus: ' "Without lawful excuse" ', ' "Destroys or damages" ', etc. Otherwise, they need to be rephrased so that they do not appear to fragmentary, for example, like this: "Lack of lawful excuse", "Destruction or damage", etc.
Y Done

[edit] "Without lawful excuse"
  • Ellipses should only contain three full stops.
Y Done
  • R v. Hill and Hall: you mention "defendants" but then "She claimed..."
Y Done - both claimed this, in fact.
  • R v. Denton: why was the factory owner entitled to have the factory burned down? This seems puzzling and needs to be explained.
Additional information needed LCJ seems to have accepted this without authority, does it really need a cite?
It doesn't need a cite, but it needed some explanation, which you've provided. — JackLee, 03:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Destroys or damages"
  • The subsection heading should quote s. 1(1) accurately, and so should be "Destroys or damages".
Y Done
  • Morphitis v. Salmon: provide a pinpoint citation (to the page or paragraph number of the case) for the quotation.
Additional information needed - case is not online, but referred to in R v Whiteley, so pinpoint reference not available as report is Crim LR.
You should try to look up the printed report, if possible. — JackLee, 03:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Criminal Law Review do not report in as much detail as, say, All ER or WLR. They set out facts, arguments and decision, but rarely paragraph numbers. Sadly, for many useful cases, they are the only report and in the same league as Road Traffic Reports or Lloyd's LR in that respect.
  • Link "computer hacking" to a suitable Wikipedia article.
Y Done - not a great article, but it's the only one we have
Well, we work with the tools we have. — JackLee, 03:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Belonging to another"
  • There's no need to have both bullet and letters ("(a)", "(b)", etc.). Eliminate the bullets.
Y Done
  • "... destruction; however a person ..." → "... destruction. However, a person..."
Y Done
  • The last paragraph needs a citation.
Additional information needed - this is so general there must be a cite for it somewhere.
Y Done ref to Lysaght v Edwards, leading case on rights of mortgagee but prior to LPA 1925.

[edit] Intent and recklessness
  • Eliminate the bullets.
Y Done
  • Why are the first two items in the list numbered (i) and (ii), but the third item not numbered (iii)?
The third governs "risk" in both (i) & (ii) so is part of the main text.
  • Chamberlain v. Lindon: provide a pinpoint citation for the quotation.
Y Done - found corrected quotation & added para to BAILII citation

[edit] Aggravated criminal damage
  • Beginning the paragraph with "The variant created by section 1(2) ..." is puzzling – the reader is apt to ask, "What variant?" Work some mention of aggravated criminal damage into the paragraph.
Y Done - reworded to avoid this doubt
I've reworded it further. — JackLee, 03:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "defendants actions" → "defendant's actions".
Y Done
  • "... life, however there ..." → " ... life. However, there ..."
Y Done

[edit] Arson
  • "... within section 5(2), but it was held ..." → "... within section 5(2). However, it was held ..." (sentence is too long).
Y Done recast

[edit] Threats and Possession of items
  • Eliminate the bullets.
Y Done

[edit] Extent, penalties and procedure
  • Full stop at the end of the first sentence missing (add it before the footnote number).
Y Done added
  • See if you can provide an updated link to the full text of the Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 at the OPSI website. The current link that you have used has a security certificate issue.
Y Done OPSI link added
  • The bullet points in this subsection seem unnecessary. Rewrite the list items in continuous prose.
Y Done
  • "Section 30 ... sets out ..."
Y Done
  • Rephrase the last sentence to remove the two occurrences of "which" – perhaps "that were overlooked".
Y Done

[edit] Standard appendices; categories

  • The "See also" section should be removed for now. I don't see how a link to the article "Case citation" is at all relevant.
Y Done - removed
Y Done - renamed
  • As I've suggested you provide a link to the full text of the 1971 Act in the main text, it should be removed from "External links". The other two links may be more appropriate in a "Further reading" section.
Y Done - removed & renamed
Y Done - removed

I've put the article on hold; leave a message on my talk page when you've completed updating the article or if you need more time to make changes. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further comments

I've taken the liberty of doing a cleanup of the article. I have a few more comments:

Y Done - this seems to be a fairly standard image and is used on several websites; it's clearly contemporary and therefore long out of copyright.
  • I've rephrased the following sentence in the "Aggravated criminal damage" subsection, as the original sentence was missing something: "Therefore, although a defendant does not necessarily intend to endanger life when he intends to break a car window, ignoring the likely risk that this will cause the driver to swerve into the path of another vehicle, perhaps fatally, constitutes recklessness and is a sufficient causative nexus." Please check that it conveys what you intend it to mean.
This is roughly it, although the intention need not be specifically to break car windows, it could be just to frighten drivers or "for kicks", but it's clear that "closing one's mind" to the consequences constitutes recklessness.
  • The more important comment is that before I upgrade the article to GA status I think there do need to be more references to secondary sources in order to comply with the "no original research" policy. I realize you've already done a fair bit to try and remedy this by including references to websites, but it's better to try and get this matter sorted out now then for me to pass the article and then to have another editor downgrade the article later on following a GA review. If you can get to a fairly large library (it doesn't have to be a law library), you should be able to get hold of Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice and Halsbury's Laws of England – some references to these works should suffice.
Hopefully can get to my local college library later on today.

How much more time do you think you'll need? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Only a day or two; I'll let you know when I've done that. Thanks for your helpful improvements. --Rodhullandemu 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Have not had a very fruitful day; the local college library has a handful of low-level textbooks, none of which has any deep critical commentary, although a couple of relevant cases have come to light. The pubic library is useless; in the whole of Wiltshire there is not one copy of Archbold! The local solicitors no longer have criminal practices since the magistrates' court was closed down, so don't have any "old" books kicking around. The charity shops are barren, as is Waterstone's, and I can't afford the, what £450? for a copy. If I could reasonably get to Hay-on-Wye I might conceivably find a copy, and I can't afford to get to the nearest university in Bath. I will try this evening to find some online sources, but in particular Morphitis v Salmon, being a Criminal Law Review report, will not have the text of the judgement anywhere outside the Divisional Court's own repository. It would help if you could outline which parts of the article apart from that suffer from original research and I'll do what I can, but if the choice is between eating and spending money going to Bath for a day, I do have to eat. --Rodhullandemu 17:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about that. Well, Archbold is a practitioner's text, so smaller libraries are not likely to have copies of it, but it's surprising you can't find one in the whole of Wiltshire (or is that a bit of hyperbole?). I certainly wouldn't expect you to purchase a copy or go to other unnecessary expense just for the purpose of this article. If you really can't get hold of any suitable law texts at the moment (e.g., Halsbury's Laws), what about using the two sources you've put in the "Further reading" section? I think the facts that need further referencing are only these:

  • Common law: "The common law generally treated damage to another's chattels as a civil matter leading only to a right to damages in trespass or nuisance ..." – the quotation from Blackstone is interesting but I feel it doesn't bring this point home very clearly. Perhaps some explication of Blackstone's quotation is required.
Y Done have taken Blackstone's heading of "Private Wrongs" from the cited reference & explained that the State did not involve itself in such disputes.
  • Early legislation: "However at this time the general criminal law afforded no protection for purely personal chattels."
Y Done since it's impossible, or at best intractable, to try and prove a negative, I think this has to go. Doubtless there were certain specific protections but these will be scattered about in all sorts of obscure legislation and it's not vital for the article to offer evidence of this.
  • Malicious Damage Act 1861: "It largely survives in the Republic of Ireland and many Commonwealth countries which had been parts of the British Empire in 1861, including Canada, Trinidad & Tobago and numerous former British African colonies."
Y Done - difficult to source, but on looking into it, have found that Ireland have actually replaced it, and their 1988 Law Commission report is actually a useful commentary on the 1861 Act, so have added that to the "See Also". Canada seems to have replaced it with their Criminal Code, but can't find a repeal, so have omitted this. The only other Commonwealth country still seeming to use it is Sierra Leone, so have left this in as an example. I think what's left, being sourced, can be justified.

The information in the "Criminal Damage Act 1971" is from the Act itself or from cases, so no further referencing is required. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that; it makes things easier. Having looked at the cases I've found, the points they consider are not deal-breakers as far as completeness of the article is concerned, and they are not in BAILII, so perhaps they can wait. The three points you raise above could be dealt with fairly easily, and I will deal with them ASAP, and let you know when I have done this. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully I have now addressed remaining concerns and this article can find its rightful place as a rare example of a Law Good Article. --Rodhullandemu 00:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that will do nicely. Congratulations on getting the article up to GA status! I'll be archiving this GA review at "Talk:Criminal damage in English law/GA1" shortly. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cases to be considered for addition

  • Blake v DPP (1993) - vicar convicted of graffiti vandalism to s church on the basis that reasonable belief in "consent of the owner" did not extend to God, and any consent would have to be given by a natural person or a corporation.
  • R v Sangha (1988) - on charge of arson with intent to endanger life, it was held irrelevant that the fire set by the defendant was physically incapable (because of firewalls) of spreading to the premises of his intended (or reckless) victim
  • R v Smith (1974) - intent has to be to damage "property of another"; even though by physically attaching his stereo system to a landlord's wall had in law made it a "fixture", defendant's intent was to recover his own property. There's a land law case on a collection of stuffed animals about this. The CPE seems so many years ago now....
Look forward to seeing these cases being incorporated into the article at some stage. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)