Aggravated arson of the defendant's own property (Criminal Damage Act 1971, s.1(2) and (3))
Victor Mills owns a detached house in Derby, where he lets a room to a lodger, Kasia. In financial difficulty, he decides to set fire to the house to make an insurance claim. At 2am, knowing that Kasia is asleep upstairs and realising that the fire might endanger her life, he sets fire to the downstairs living room. Kasia wakes and escapes unhurt. The fire badly damages the house.
Which of the following best describes Victor's liability under s.1(2) and (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: He is guilty, because he damaged property by fire, reckless as to whether another's life would thereby be endangered; it is irrelevant that the house is his own.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Aggravated criminal damage (and arson) under s.1(2) can be committed against one's own property where D intends or is reckless as to endangering another's life by the damage; no actual harm is needed.
Aggravated arson of the defendant's own property (Criminal Damage Act 1971, s.1(2) and (3))
Section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 creates the aggravated offence. A person commits it if, without lawful excuse, he destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another, intending to destroy or damage property or being reckless about it, and intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether life would be endangered. Under s.1(3), an offence under s.1 committed by fire is charged as arson. Victor deliberately set fire to the house, realised that the fire might endanger Kasia's life, and went ahead. That is subjective recklessness as to endangering life through the damage. Ownership is irrelevant to s.1(2), and life need only be intended or risked to be endangered; it need not actually be endangered or harmed.
Why A is wrong: Section 1(2) expressly applies to property 'whether belonging to himself or another'.
Why C is wrong: The offence requires intention or recklessness as to endangering life, not actual injury or actual danger.
Why D is wrong: Section 1(2)(b) expressly includes being reckless as to whether life would be endangered.
Why E is wrong: Motive is irrelevant; it is enough that he was reckless as to endangering life by the damage.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Subjective recklessness in criminal damage (R v G)
Which of the following best describes whether Priya was reckless as to the damage to the warehouse?
Liability for failing to act after creating a dangerous situation (R v Miller duty)
Which of the following best describes whether Tomasz can be criminally liable for the damage caused by the fire?
Mens rea of 'maliciously' inflicting grievous bodily harm (s.20 OAPA 1861; R v Mowatt)
Which of the following best states the mens rea the prosecution must prove under s.20?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.