The main issues in this case are, first if it is justifiable to enter a building unlawfully to seek shelter, whether it is legal to use steal property to protect another, and whether William is guilty of section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 by setting fire to the barn.
The first issue that has to be tackled is what should William have done after he lost his tent. His tent would surely have not been any good use to him anymore since it was wet and he might have risked his life in finding it. Also sleeping in the forest or hiking overnight to find a hotel would have been unreasonable and since it was raining the farm house was the only solution. The fact that there was no one in the house could not have been foreseeable and already William reacts reasonable instead of entering the house, which could have been a crime, he enters the stables, and here one can reasonably understand that he had a lawful excuse.
In Criminal Damage Act 1972 Section 5 (2)(a) it states that the person “the owner” of the property would have consented to it if he or they had known of the circumstances surrounding it . Also it states in 5 (3) it is immaterial whether a belief is justified as long as it is honestly held. A reasonable person would have allowed William to stay in the stable. Had the owner known that William was stranded. William was right to assume that he could enter the barn to seek shelter he might even have been allowed to enter the main house. Surely there can be no offence for trespassing on property William had a lawful excuse.
The second main issue and by far the most complicated is whether William is guilty of the Criminal Damage Act 1972 1(1) or if he has a defence. actually the law is very clear on this. It states in the act that “1(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another….is being reckless as to whether any such


property would be destroyed shall be guilty of an offence. To an onlooker it seems pretty clear that William was being reckless by lighting a fire in a barn.
To him the consequences were not clear he was cold and he was wet and he needed some warmth so he would not get sick. William did not appreciate what could happen but to a reasonable onlooker lighting a fire in a barn is reckless behaviour even if it was necessary so William did not risk hypothermia.
This case seems very clear as this case concerns Criminal Damage, and the R. v. Caldwell (1982) AC341 case must be taken into consideration. (Where the accused got drunk and set fire to a hotel in pursuit of a grievance he had with the owner the fire was stopped before anyone got hurt and he got charged with two counts of arson and pleaded guilty to one but not to the one concerning life endangerment but the appeal was held.) The principle of the Caldwell recklessness is defined by Lord Diplock “Recklessness on the part of the doer of an act presupposes that there is something in the circumstances that would have drawn the attention of an ordinary prudent” and sober “individual to the possibility that his act was capable of causing the kind of serious harmful consequences …and that the risk of those harmful consequences occurring was not so slight that an ordinary prudent individual would feel justified in treating them as negligible .
The question is who is the ordinary individual? Surely William himself is pretty ordinary we also know that he was sober and that he was hiking in the woods so he is a healthy human being. If you look at Elliot v. C. (a minor) 77CR.APP.R 103DC (where a 14 year old girl set fire to a garden shed after a night out she was also charged with section 1(1) even though it might not


have been obvious to her if she had given thought to the matter.) The court held that even with a minor, “a defendant is reckless….if he fails to give any thought to the possibility of there being a risk.” so there is no defence for William. The test for recklessness has to be objective in crimes concerning criminal damage. Lord Diplock said in R v. Miller 2AC161 (appeal by squatter against a conviction of arson when the appellant woke up to find his mattress on fire by his own cigarette and then just moved to another room and the house burned down. appeal dismissed) “generally in cases involving destruction of or damage to property belonging to another by fire where the prosecution relies on recklessness of the defendant the direction recommended in Caldwell is appropriate.
Therefore it all depends on Caldwell and the defendant would be guilty if he had not reacted to the fire he caused. Which brings me to the third main issue the tractor. William realized the fire was dangerous and tried to prevent it from making anymore damage than it already did and tried to stop the fire from destroying the farm house, so he risked his own life to try and stop it by using the tractor to destroy the barn. Here we can also use R. v. Miller when Lord Diplock said “the accused is guilty of the offence under section 1(1)….if when he becomes aware of the events he caused he does not try to prevent or reduce the risk of damage by his own efforts or if necessary by sending for help from the fire brigade and the reason he does not is because he had not given any thought to it.” So William might have a defence certainly one of diminished responsibility because he knows he did something wrong by accident and then tries to reduce the damage.
Therefore William has a defence against most charges and even though he caused the fire, he tried to prevent it from spreading and full responsibility can not be weighed but
diminished responsibility maybe not even a prison sentence considering the circumstances the case should be looked at subjectively.

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com