Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
A v DPP
[2003] EWHC 1676 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 393 (Jun)
Court: DC
Judgment Date: 30/06/2003
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Distinguishe | Evans v DPP | [2001] EWHC Admin 369, [2001] All ER (D) 176 (May) | DC | 14/05/200 |
Catchwords & Digest
CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE - BURGLARY - BURGLARY WITH INTENT TO CAUSE UNLAWFUL DAMAGE - JUSTICES REFERRING TO RECKLESSNESS IN REASONS FOR CONVICTING 11-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT - VALIDITY OF CONVICTION - THEFT ACT 1968, S 9(1)(A)
The defendant, who was 11 years old at the time, was charged with three others with an offence of burglary with intent to cause unlawful damage contrary to s 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. The offence arose out of an incident at a security hut when about 40 youths were running amok. The justices convicted the defendant and the others, but stated in their reasons that 'we are satisfied as to recklessness. The defendants would all have been aware that the hut had already been entered and items taken and damaged'. The justices' legal advisor invited the justices to clarify their reasons in relation to the question of intent. The justices then stated that they believed that the defendants had it in their minds to commit criminal damage at the point of entry into the hut. However, they went on to say that 'our view is that the boys, when they entered the hut, having seen what they had in the street, entered with a degree of recklessness, knowing that anything they removed would cause criminal damage'. Since recklessness formed no part of the offence in question, the defendant appealed by way of case stated. He submitted that in the case of an 11-year-old of previously good character, it was of particular importance that the defendant should have that of which he had been convicted explained to him clearly and comprehensively, and, by referring to recklessness, the justices in the instant case had not done so.
Held - The appeal would be allowed. The justices might well have given the defendant the impression that the wrong test had been applied. They referred to recklessness in their original reasons but made no reference to intention, and although reference to 'belief' in the instant case would have been sufficient of itself to amount to a finding of intention in the justices' clarification, it too was followed by a reference to recklessness. Accordingly, the defendant's conviction would be quashed.
