R v Wenton (Luke) [2010] EWCA Crim 2361
Criminal damage – causation – mens rea
Facts
A window was smashed by a brick at a property which was occupied by a family with three children. Shortly afterwards, a canister filled with petrol was thrown through the broken window along with paper that had already been lit. The petrol spilled out of the canister but the paper had extinguished before it caught light and there was no fire. Wenton’s finger prints were found on both the canister and the paper and he was subsequently charged under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 section 1.
Issue
The Crown submitted that Wenton smashed the window in order to throw the canister with the lit paper in order to endanger life. As a defence, Wenton submitted that there were two separate acts that had taken place. The first was breaking the window with the brick, which carried no threat to life and then he threw the canister filled with petrol into the house. The Crown argued that the two cases were intertwined as part of Wenton’s ongoing and continued conduct of getting the petrol canister into the victim’s premises.
Decision/Outcome
Appeal allowed. The actus reus of the charge was the breaking of the window. Following R v Steer [1988], the threat to life had to result from the damage to the property and not the act of the defendant. Also, previous authority had also focussed on the consequence of the damage caused, which in this cases was minimal. Therefore, it was seen that the incident that gave rise to risk of life, was separate from the act that caused the damage.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as of 2025. The decision in R v Wenton (Luke) [2010] EWCA Crim 2361 is correctly stated, and the article accurately reflects the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, including its application of the House of Lords’ decision in R v Steer [1988] AC 111. The relevant provision, section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, remains in force in its original form with no material amendments affecting the principles discussed. No subsequent case law appears to have altered the legal position described. The article can be read with confidence, though students should note that the principle from Steer — that the endangerment to life must arise from the damage itself, not merely from the defendant’s act — continues to be a key point of examination in this area of criminal law.
