Examination Timing: 00H03M57S
A man squeezed superglue into the hard drive of his colleague’s computer. The man intended only to play a practical joke by making the computer temporarily unusable. He foresaw that his actions could cause damage to the computer and it was, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take this risk. He did not foresee that damage was a virtually certain consequence of his actions. In fact, the computer was damaged beyond repair and he ought to have foreseen that this was a virtual certainty. His actions were unreasonable. Can the man be guilty of criminal damage?
< 上一页
Your selected option: B
下一页 >
To be guilty of criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to destroy or damage property or was reckless as to whether property would be destroyed or damaged. In this case, the man foresaw the risk of damage to the computer and it was unreasonable for him to take this risk in the circumstances. The fact that he foresaw the possibility of damage and still proceeded with his actions satisfies the recklessness requirement for criminal damage.
Key Point: Criminal damage can be established if the defendant was reckless, meaning he foresaw a risk of damage and unreasonably took that risk. Intent to cause damage is not necessary; awareness of the risk and proceeding despite it is sufficient for liability.
收集问题
i cannot understand
Certainly! Let's break this down step by step to help you understand it better.
### The Scenario:
A man put superglue in his colleague's computer hard drive as a joke, aiming to make it temporarily unusable. However, he did foresee that this action could cause damage to the computer, although he did not think it was virtually certain to cause permanent damage. The computer ended up being damaged beyond repair, and he should have been aware that such damage was a virtual certainty.
### The Legal Context:
Under the **Criminal Damage Act 1971**, the prosecution must prove one of the following:
1. The defendant **intended** to destroy or damage property.
2. The defendant was **reckless** as to whether property would be destroyed or damaged.
### Key Points:
1. **Intention:**
- The man did not intend to cause permanent damage; he intended to cause temporary inconvenience.
2. **Recklessness:**
- **Recklessness** in legal terms means that the person was aware there was a risk of damage (even if not certain about it) and unreasonably decided to carry on with their actions regardless.
### Applying This to the Scenario:
- The man **foresaw** the risk of causing damage to the computer.
- Even though he did not intend for the damage to be permanent, he was aware that his actions carried a risk of causing damage.
- His decision to go ahead with the prank, despite being aware of this risk, was **unreasonable** given the circumstances.
Therefore, according to the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the fact that he was aware of the risk of causing damage and proceeded with his actions satisfies the requirement for **recklessness**. This makes him criminally liable for the damage caused.
### Summary:
- **Intent** to cause damage is not required for criminal damage.
- **Awareness of risk** (recklessness) and proceeding regardless of that risk can make someone liable for criminal damage.
- In this case, the man's awareness of the risk and unreasonable action means he can be guilty of criminal damage.
I hope this clarification helps you understand the concept better! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask!