Speed Cameras: what offence would this be?

Spicy_McHaggis

brat wrote: »

I'll go out for a bike ride instead, and let the boy simmer down...

Take care old timer.

Spicy_McHaggis

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm wondering if it's time you two got a room?

Nah, he's too old, too short but does look good in a skirt.:rotfl:

brat

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Nah, he's too old, too short but does look good in a skirt.:rotfl:

And I eat you for breakfast!

Spicy_McHaggis

brat wrote: »

And I eat you for breakfast!

Oh you naughty boy you don't look the type.

thenudeone

To answer the very first question:

It would be an offence of Criminal Damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
There are stated cases on this offence which cover two important points:
1) damage can include merely "making something less useful"
2) damage need not be permanent.
as confirmed by http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/criminal_damage/

I don't think the prosecution would have too much trouble finding stated cases made by a higher (and therefore binding) court to demonstrate the very wide definition of "Damage" which the Act covers, and which the circumstances described here would fit into easily.

Cornucopia

If the "damage" is clearly temporary and results in a repair cost of £0, I think that charge would be something of a stretch.

Do you have any relevant case law?

If I can give you a hypothetically similar case (one which would be laughed out of court)...

Person A places bags over the wing mirrors of Person B's car, such that the wing mirrors were rendered non-functional. However the bags are attached in such a way as to be easily removed leaving no visible marks or damage.

This would be potentially resolvable by civil harassment remedies, but I don't see it being a viable case of Criminal Damage.

Aretnap

Damage is interpreted very broadly. For example, in Samuels v Stubbs (1972) stamping on a policeman's hat was deemed to have damaged it, even though it was easily pushed back into shape. In R v Fiak (2005) soaking a blanket and a waterproof floor with water was held to constitute criminal damage, even though both could be easily dried. Anything which impairs the usefulness of an item can potentially be classed as damage, even though the impairment is only temporary and/or easily remedied. I have little doubt that the same principle would apply to covering a speed camera with a bin bag.

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Samuels-v-Stubbs.php
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Fiak.php

Joe_Horner

Although, in defence, you could argue that both those cases involved some physical change to the item/s concerned (squashing it or making them wet in those cases), however temporary.

In this case I'd submit that must be an essential element of causing damage to something, no matter how widely the concept is defined. Simply changing the environment in which it's situated can't be considered damage or else, for example, parking in front of a fire door would constitute damage to the door by affecting its usefulness - clearly an absurdity!

Would it be "damage" to the camera if, instead of placing the bag on the camera, you placed a portable scaffold tower in front of it and hung the bag in front of the lens from that, with no physical contact with the camera? Same effect, same intent, and essentially the same act, but hardly "damage" by any stretch of the imagination!

Cornucopia

I agree. I think if the authorities are going to interpret "damage" as widely as that, then maybe my original scenario wouldn't pass. (Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't: obviously there is no intent to cause damage in the plain English sense).

But, various other scenarios would, I think. You could imagine all sorts of non-damaging interference from scaffolds, placards on poles, high-sided vehicles parking in the way, drones, balloons, maybe even lasers (not sure about that from a technical POV).

I wonder why we don't see more of it? Perhaps people lack the imagination to do anything more than the occasional arson attack?

Aretnap

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Although, in defence, you could argue that both those cases involved some physical change to the item/s concerned (squashing it or making them wet in those cases), however temporary.

In this case I'd submit that must be an essential element of causing damage to something, no matter how widely the concept is defined. Simply changing the environment in which it's situated can't be considered damage or else, for example, parking in front of a fire door would constitute damage to the door by affecting its usefulness - clearly an absurdity!

Would it be "damage" to the camera if, instead of placing the bag on the camera, you placed a portable scaffold tower in front of it and hung the bag in front of the lens from that, with no physical contact with the camera? Same effect, same intent, and essentially the same act, but hardly "damage" by any stretch of the imagination!

Hmmm... I'm not convinced. Admittedly there are some conflicting authorities on whether adding something to property (as opposed to removing it) can constitute damage. There are wheel clamping cases in which it was held that adding a clamp to a car did not infringe the integrity of the car so could not constitute criminal damage. However those judgements have been heavily criticised - the Appeal Court was obviously desperate to keep wheel clamping legal and tied itself in knots in the process, issuing a number of contradictory judgements which may not have much wider relevance. OTOH one can point to cases like Hardman v Avon and Somerset where drawing chalk figures on a pavement was held to constitute criminal damage, even though the pavement retained its integrity and the figures would have washed away the next time it rained.

Given that there is interference with the property itself (rather than just placing something near it, which might be harder to class as damage), a clear intention to prevent the device functioning properly, and a clear public interest in stopping people from interfering with speed cameras (unless you're of the view that speed cameras are inherently useless and evil of course, but no court is going to take that view) I strongly suspect that if it push came to shove a court would apply a dash of common sense and adopt an interpretation which allowed the act to be punished. Of course we won't know for sure unless someone is prosecuted for it, convicted and takes his case to appeal.