within the Criminal Damages Act (1971 C. 48), Does section 1.3 require proof of a mental state?

Question

It refers to arson!

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

Hi Romeo.

There are two elements to this crime. The Actus Reus (The guilty Act) and The Mens Rea (The guilty mind).

Freely translated means what someone did and their intent.

Consideration must be given as to if the person knew or should have known the consequences of their actions. In other words were they possibly reckless.

Recklessness has been brought into question in the courts because there were two types of recklessness Cunningham recklessness and Caldwell recklessness, the latter having been overturned by R v G and another in 2003 as being bad law but this case involved two young lads setting fire to some boxes that subsequently spread to a factory causing £1 million worth of damage.

A defence of diminished responsibility is possible in this type of case but depends on the circumstances of the case.

Section. 3(1) of the 1971 Act states that this offence will be charged as Arson and can carry a discretionary life sentence. Using diminished responsibility or automatism as a defence can still have far reaching consequences under the Mental Health Act.

If a defendant is found not guilty under these circumstances he/she can still be committed to a secure unit on the grounds that they are a danger to themselves and/or others.

Hope this helps to clarify things a little.

Answer 3

arson is criminal damage by fire otherwise the burden of proof is the same ie.intending or reckless as to whether damage would be caused would have to be proved.