Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Miller | Criminal Law Case | Law Teacher

133 words (1 pages) Case Summary

16th Jul 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction(s): UK Law

Miller Case

HOUSE OF LORDS 

LORD DIPLOCK, LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH, LORD BRANDON

OF OAKBROOK AND LORD BRIGHTMAN 

16 FEBRUARY, 17 MARCH 1983

The actus reus of the offence of arson, contrary to s 1(1) and (3)a of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, is present if the defendant

accidentally starts a fire and thereafter, intending to destroy or

damage property belonging to another or being reckless whether any such

property would be destroyed or damaged, fails to take any steps to

extinguish the fire or prevent damage to such property by that fire (see

p 981 d to f, p 982 f to j, and p 983 j to p 984 b, post). 

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all