Blake v DPP, a summary of criminal case law

Blake v DPP, a summary of criminal casing lawIntroductionIn addition to the general self-abnegations seen in criminal law (duress, coercion, diminished responsibility etc) the offence of criminal damage has a figure of specific defences which are found in the felonious Damage Act 1971. In particular section 5 (2) states that a defendant has a legitimate still, ifHe believed that the person whom he believed entitled to consent to the destruction or damage of the property would have a bun in the oven consented, had he known of the circumstances orhe acted in order to protect the property of himself of another, or a right or interest in property thatthe property, right, or interest was in neighboring(a) need of protection, andthe means adopted were reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances.This defence has been used in a number of fictional characters that will be dealt with below. The leading authority on the defence is Blake v DPP1. However, one must port at the la w prior to this judgement and after it.Prior to BlakeIn R v Ashford2 it was held not top be a lawful excuse for the defendants to cut the electrify at an airforce cup of tea in order protest against the use of nu pee-pee weapons redden if they internally believed that they had a lawful excuse to act. Michael Jefferson states that the defendants argued that the reduction of the risk of the use of nuclear weapons would protect property in England because the risk of retaliation would be reduced.3 It was an al pointy viewed as an objective test that the courts employed.R v Hill4 involved the defendants cutting a wire fence in order to prevent nuclear war. The judicatory of Appeal held that the act of cutting was overly remote from the prevention of nuclear war and they confirmed that it was an objective test rather than a subjective test. Jefferson notes that the property was not in immediate need of protection and so it did not matter that the defendants believed they were perfo rming to protect property belonging to another.Blake v DPPThe defence would apply if the defendant honestly believes X is the owner and consents, even though X is not the owner. However in Blake v DPP, the Divisional Court rejected the defendant vicars argument that he believed that God owned the property and had consented to the damage. The court declare that his belief was sincere it was however impossible to produce any evidence other than the defendants own belief that the command was in fact hark backn. If this defence was indeed accepted accordingly the defence could be raised regarding murder where the accused could simply claim he was carrying out the intentions of God. His marker penitentiary graffiti on the Houses of Parliament in protest against the Gulf war was held to be unlawful.The defendant as well claimed that he had a lawful excuse under section 5 (2) (b) as he alter the pillar in order to protect property in the Gulf States. The Divisional Court held that, ev en if the defendant had believed that he had a lawful excuse, the court needed to adopt an objective view, if on the facts believed by the defendant, what was make by him protected, or was capable of protecting property.Richard Card states that the offence was to protect the property in the Gulf States as such protection was too remote from his conduct5. Card states that this objective requirement read into s 5 (2) (b) is not easily reconcilable with the words of the statute, which seem to be a clear expression of a test that is solely subjective.Post BlakeThe case of Chamberlain v Lindon6 showed that the defence has some success. This case deals with a right of way as the accused was held to be protecting it when he demolished a wall. This was held to be in an immediate need of protection as it was being obstructed and it would continue until litigation resolved the case.R v Kelleher7 involved a defendant who knocked the head off a statue of Baroness Thatcher in a protest regardi ng the policies of democratic governments (UK and USA). The defendant believed that these policies made the world a more dangerous get in to live in and would lead to the destruction of the world. The defendant was convicted but then appealed on two grounds. First, he stated that the ruling of the judge that the defence of lawful excuse was not available was wrong. Secondly, the judge in putly directed the jury to return a verdict of guilty.Regarding the first issue, the court held that the trial judge was correct in deeming the defence of lawful excuse as unavailable to the defendant. Regarding the second ground for appeal, William Priestley states that as the jury was invited to retire after the judges direction, this showed that the jury had in fact acted independently as they then returned and delivered a verdict of guilty.8In Jones v Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service9 the defendants relied on section 5 (2) (b) as they damaged property at RAF Fairford in order to prote st at illegality of the war in Iraq. These acts were done in order to preserve the homes of their family and friends. It was held that none of the defendants could reasonably believe that their actions of cutting wire around an RAF basis would protect their homes.ConclusionAs we have seen the defence of s 5 (2) has been used by a number of defendants. Its use has been primarily used by individuals protesting against the policies of the government. With the charitable Rights Act 1998 cementing the European Convention of Human Rights into the UK legal system, Article 10 and 12 will be relied on in order to give individuals the right of assembly and free speech. This right however does not extend to criminal acts of damage against property. The objectiveness that surrounds s (5) (2) shows that defendants will find it increasingly difficult to rely on this defence however get and sincere these subjective thoughts may well be.BibliographyBooksAshworth, A. Principles of Criminal prac tice of law 5th ed. 2006. OxfordCard, R. Criminal Law sixteenth ed. 2004. Lexis Nexis. LondonHerring, J. Criminal Law Text, Cases and Materials 3rd ed. 2008. Oxford.Jefferson, M. Criminal Law 8th ed. 2007. Lexis Nexis. London. ledgersThe Police Journal. Vol.76 (4) 2003Footnotes1 1992 93 Cr App R 1692 1988 Crim LR 682 (CA)3 Jefferson, M. Criminal Law 8th Ed. 2007.p.7074 1989 89 Cr App R 745 Richard Card. Criminal Law 16th Ed, 2004.6 1998 2 All ER 5387 2003 EWCA Crim 28468 Priestley, W. Lawful Excuse to the Offence of Criminal Damage. Police Journal vol.76 2003.9 2005 QB 259