Keenan and Riches’BUSINESS LAW

Chapter 12Criminal liability in business

377

1 How, if at all, would you justify the use of the
criminal law to control unfair trading practices? What
are the advantages and disadvantages of imposing
strict liability for criminal offences in the field of
consumer protection?

2 David is the author of a guide to British cafés and
snack bars. During the course of a year he travels

considerable distances in his car pursuing his

researches and consequently he changes his car

regularly every 12 months. After three months’

use David’s current car develops a fault with the

odometer which necessitates its replacement. When

David trades the car in at the end of the year, he

forgets to tell Newtown Motor Co Ltd that the car

has done 10,000 more miles than appear on the

Self-test questions/activities

position to conclude that a reasonable time within which
criminal proceedings should have begun had elapsed.

Arson

Arson is a form of criminal damage which is covered by
the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The offence of criminal
damage becomes arson when the damage is caused by fire.
Under s 1(1) of the Act:
A person who without lawful excuse destroys or dam-
ages any property belonging to another intending to
destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as
to whether any such property would be destroyed or
damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
Section 1(3) provides that ‘an offence committed
under this section by destroying or damaging property
by fire shall be charged as arson’.
Property is defined as tangible property. The essence
of criminal damage is damage to a physical thing.
The damage must be more than nominal but need not
involve total destruction. The actus reusis, therefore,
destroying or damaging property belonging to another;
the mens reais intention or recklessness. Thus, it is not
necessary for the defendant to realise the risk of damage
by fire if the ordinary prudent person would. The fol-
lowing case provides an illustration.

Lawful excuse – a defence

Section 5(2) of the Act contains the defence of lawful

excuse. The defence is available:

■where the defendant honestly believed that he had the

consent of the relevant person or would have had if

that person had known of the circumstances;

■where he acted to protect property including his own

which he believed was in need of immediate protec-

tion and he believed the means used were reasonable.

Elliottv C (1983)

C, a 14-year-old schoolgirl, spent one entire night awake

and wandering around. She entered a toolshed and

there poured white spirit on to a carpet and set light to

it, destroying the shed. The magistrates found that she

Rv Denton (1982)

The defendant set fire to a cotton mill at the request of

his employer, the latter intending to make a fraudulent

claim on his insurance policy. He was not guilty because

he believed that the person who was entitled to consent

had done so. A more appropriate charge would have

been conspiracy to defraud.

Where life is endangered

Section 1(2) of the Act contains the offence of destroying

or damaging property with intention or recklessness as to

endangering life. The offence is triable only on indictment

and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment,

and the defence of lawful excuse in s 5(2) does not apply.

did not appreciate just how flammable the spirit was and

having regard to her extreme tiredness she did not give

any real thought to the risk of fire. She was accordingly

acquitted. On appeal, however, she was convicted. The

correct test was whether a reasonable prudent person

would realise the danger of fire in the circumstances,

even though the particular accused did not.