Only a thought, but lets say the board did catch fire, I know it's very unlikely but what if it did.
Where would everyone stand then.
Where would everyone stand then.
Electrical Installation Condition Report. Rights to isolate DB
- Thread starter Mark c
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
outside out the way
[quote name='Andy
[quote name='Andy
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 14,507
- Reaction score
- 1,077
My reply was going to be '2 paces behind Trumpton'...but I had to reboot PC, so the moment has gone... :coat
husky2013
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2011
- Messages
- 682
- Reaction score
- 0
Disconnecting and capping the supply to the DB is in fact criminal damage if it has been carried out without the owners consent
There exist three offences of criminal damage contained in the Criminal Damage Act 1971. These are simple criminal damage under s.1(1), aggravated criminal damage under s.1(2) and criminal damage by arson under s.1(3). In addition s.2 covers threats to destroy or damage property belonging to another and s.3 covers possession of items with intent to use them or permit others to use them to destroy or damage property belonging to another. The maximum penalty for aggravated criminal damage and arson is life imprisonment. The maximum for all other offences tried on indictment is 10 years. There is a special statutory defence available under s.5 of lawful excuse.
Simple criminal damage s1(1)
S.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides that a person is guilty of criminal damage if they intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse.
Actus reus of simple criminal damage
The actus reus of simple criminal damage consists of:
Destroy or damage
Property
Belonging to another
Destroy or damage
There is no statutory definition of 'destroy or damage', however some principles have emerged from case law:
There is no requirement that the property is rendered useless, a diminution in value is sufficient for liability for criminal damage:
Roper v Knott [1898] 1 QB 868 Case summary
If no damage in fact occurs then no liability for criminal damage can arise:
A (a Juvenile) v R [1978] Crim LR 689 Case summary
However, damage includes temporary impairment or temporary loss of use:
R v Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2381 Case summary
Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48 Case summary
R v Whiteley [1991] 93 CAR 25 Case summary
The courts have come close to finding that actual damage is unnecessary:
Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SASR 200 Case summary
Importantly, where expense has been incurred in restoring the property to its former state, this will constitute criminal damage:
Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735 Case summary
This seems to apply even where the expense was unnecessarily incurred:
Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon [1986] Crim LR 330 Case summary
Destroying or damage can be committed by an omission:
R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 Case summary
Property
The definition of property for the purposes of criminal damage is found in s.10(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971. Property embraces only tangible property. It includes real property (land and buildings) and personal property. Money is also included. By virtue of s.10(1) (a) animals are only included if they are tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity and under s.10(1)(B) wild mushrooms, fruit, flowers, foliage and plants are excluded.
It may even be percieved as Reckless Criminal Damage:
The appropriate test of recklessness for criminal damage is:
"A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to -
(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;
(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;
and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk."
IMHO from the information i have put above, this clearly outlines what this person has done is in fact criminal damage, as im sure other persons would agree
There exist three offences of criminal damage contained in the Criminal Damage Act 1971. These are simple criminal damage under s.1(1), aggravated criminal damage under s.1(2) and criminal damage by arson under s.1(3). In addition s.2 covers threats to destroy or damage property belonging to another and s.3 covers possession of items with intent to use them or permit others to use them to destroy or damage property belonging to another. The maximum penalty for aggravated criminal damage and arson is life imprisonment. The maximum for all other offences tried on indictment is 10 years. There is a special statutory defence available under s.5 of lawful excuse.
Simple criminal damage s1(1)
S.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides that a person is guilty of criminal damage if they intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse.
Actus reus of simple criminal damage
The actus reus of simple criminal damage consists of:
Destroy or damage
Property
Belonging to another
Destroy or damage
There is no statutory definition of 'destroy or damage', however some principles have emerged from case law:
There is no requirement that the property is rendered useless, a diminution in value is sufficient for liability for criminal damage:
Roper v Knott [1898] 1 QB 868 Case summary
If no damage in fact occurs then no liability for criminal damage can arise:
A (a Juvenile) v R [1978] Crim LR 689 Case summary
However, damage includes temporary impairment or temporary loss of use:
R v Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2381 Case summary
Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48 Case summary
R v Whiteley [1991] 93 CAR 25 Case summary
The courts have come close to finding that actual damage is unnecessary:
Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SASR 200 Case summary
Importantly, where expense has been incurred in restoring the property to its former state, this will constitute criminal damage:
Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735 Case summary
This seems to apply even where the expense was unnecessarily incurred:
Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon [1986] Crim LR 330 Case summary
Destroying or damage can be committed by an omission:
R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 Case summary
Property
The definition of property for the purposes of criminal damage is found in s.10(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971. Property embraces only tangible property. It includes real property (land and buildings) and personal property. Money is also included. By virtue of s.10(1) (a) animals are only included if they are tamed or ordinarily kept in captivity and under s.10(1)(B) wild mushrooms, fruit, flowers, foliage and plants are excluded.
It may even be percieved as Reckless Criminal Damage:
The appropriate test of recklessness for criminal damage is:
"A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to -
(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;
(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;
and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk."
IMHO from the information i have put above, this clearly outlines what this person has done is in fact criminal damage, as im sure other persons would agree
springcrocus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 0
Mrs S, legal researchers earn a helluva lot more than sparks. You're in the wrong job! 
Hmmmm, I think Mrs S must be a barrister....
john...
john...
husky2013
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2011
- Messages
- 682
- Reaction score
- 0
Hahaha
A few years ago I was studying law
But after a few issues I wasn't able to continue so after that iv actually ventured into a few different professions lol!
Kitchen Designer
Youth Offenders Prison Officer
Security Officer
Court Security Officer
And now electrician....
I also kno a fair bit into the medical profession lol!
I can also tile, basic plumbing, paint, wall paper, cook clean and very computer technical minded!
So you could say I'm a jack of all trades
A few years ago I was studying law
But after a few issues I wasn't able to continue so after that iv actually ventured into a few different professions lol!
Kitchen Designer
Youth Offenders Prison Officer
Security Officer
Court Security Officer
And now electrician....
I also kno a fair bit into the medical profession lol!
I can also tile, basic plumbing, paint, wall paper, cook clean and very computer technical minded!
So you could say I'm a jack of all trades
mmmm, she used to be more of a walker than a lighter,!
isnt that right Kay?
husky2013
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2011
- Messages
- 682
- Reaction score
- 0
Lol steps, very funny but unfortunately for me it was due to a medical problem that I couldn't continue as my grandfather had both his legs amputated and I was his carer and I wasn't able to keep up on the course and care for him . But alls well that ends well I don't have any regrets as family always comes 1st
. But alls well that ends well I don't have any regrets as family always comes 1st
The thing is there is not an electrical police force that ram your door down at 4am in the morning because you did something that did not comply to BS7671.
When the term "what you have done is illegal" is used that maybe the case, but what happens is the electrician that finds the issue is asked to put it right and 99% of the time that's as far as it goes.
It may be for many reasons that they don't want to take it any further, they may have paid cash, they don't want to get involved or they just don't want the hassle.
Over the many years in the trade I have lost count of the dangerous installations I have come across and to my knowledge nobody has ever been taken to court, it's always lets get it put right and safe and that's it.
When the term "what you have done is illegal" is used that maybe the case, but what happens is the electrician that finds the issue is asked to put it right and 99% of the time that's as far as it goes.
It may be for many reasons that they don't want to take it any further, they may have paid cash, they don't want to get involved or they just don't want the hassle.
Over the many years in the trade I have lost count of the dangerous installations I have come across and to my knowledge nobody has ever been taken to court, it's always lets get it put right and safe and that's it.
