header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Criminal damage: lawful excuse?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
17 May 2024 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8071 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Human rights
printer mail-detail
172563
Justifying criminal damage in the name of protest: Nicholas Dobson looks at an Extinction Rebellion spraypaint rebellion and the ‘lawful excuse’ defence
  • In s 5(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (lawful excuse), ‘circumstances’ must relate to the destruction of, or damage to, the property and ‘do not include the political or philosophical beliefs of the person causing the damage’.
  • A judge may withdraw a defence from a jury if no reasonable jury properly directed could reach a particular conclusion.

Despite the Criminal Damage Act 1971, protest by property damage has become popular among activists. So, when is criminal damage not criminal at all? Answer: if a lawful excuse can be established. For, by s 1(1) of the 1971 Act (destroying or damaging property): ‘A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages 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’ (emphasis added).

What is ‘without lawful

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Making Big Tech pay for digital addiction
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: Leaseholders stuck in limbo
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: When a trial period becomes a ‘reasonable adjustment’
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
NLJ this week: Ignore covenants at your peril
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
NLJ this week: Courts caught in a ‘hierarchy of privacy’
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll