Computers0 min ago
Help
hi, i know someone that is in court soon for arson with intent to endanger life. they r going to drop with intent so they been told he is tagged until court case ,what could be the sentance ? he is on camera with a lighter but not sure if fire was accident like he saying it is , thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lizzy22. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Hi Lizzy
Both Arson- with intent to endanger life (Serious specified offence), and Arson- reckless as to whether life endangered both carry a max sentence of life imprisonment.
Here are some case examples:-
http:// www.cps .gov.uk /legal/ s_to_u/ sentenc ing_man ual/ars on_-_wi th_inte nt/
http:// www.cps .gov.uk /legal/ s_to_u/ sentenc ing_man ual/ars on_-_re ckless/
Or you can search cases for similar M.O here:
http:// www.the lawpage s.com/c riminal -offenc e/Arson ---reck less-as -to-whe ther-li fe-was- endange red-164 -4.law
Both Arson- with intent to endanger life (Serious specified offence), and Arson- reckless as to whether life endangered both carry a max sentence of life imprisonment.
Here are some case examples:-
http://
http://
Or you can search cases for similar M.O here:
http://
Not clear. By 'they are going to drop the intent' do you mean that they are proceeding only on a a charge of simple criminal damage by fire; intending or being reckless as to whether anything was damaged by fire; which is called, in law, 'arson' ? Recklessly damaging a pile of boxes by fire would be arson.
Simple arson is a version of criminal damage and, in a case like this where little damage, in value of property, is done, is highly unlikely to result in any custodial . sentence. Destroying a few boxes recklessly does not amount to much. The aggravating factor is just that they were destroyed by fire, which might have endangered more valuable property by the fire spreading.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
That is what is puzzling,methyl. They are going to drop 'with intent' . That could mean proceeding on simple arson, as in my post above. Or it could just be that there were two charges: 1) intent to endanger life and 2) being reckless whether life would be endangered. If the prosecution dropped (1) but are proceeding on (2), and it is that what lizzy means. In that case, obviously, the matter is serious.
-- answer removed --
Here you go Fred
Where the aggravated form of damaging property/arson is charged, specific counts should be preferred, as follows:
intending to destroy/damage property or being reckless as to whether property would be destroyed/damaged and INTENDING to endanger the life of another; or
intending to destroy/damage property or being reckless as to whether property would be destroyed/damaged and BEING RECKLESS as to whether life would be endangered.
Where the aggravated form of damaging property/arson is charged, specific counts should be preferred, as follows:
intending to destroy/damage property or being reckless as to whether property would be destroyed/damaged and INTENDING to endanger the life of another; or
intending to destroy/damage property or being reckless as to whether property would be destroyed/damaged and BEING RECKLESS as to whether life would be endangered.