Editor's Blog2 mins ago
possible sentences for criminal damage
hi further to my question about name changes etc. the police have now questioned my tenant and have said that there was �21,500 worth of damage caused to her previous property. This to me seems riseable and i suspect the previous landlord is making a whopping insurance claim somewhere, however...
What is the likely sentence for causing that level of damage if she does get charged ( curently on bail) and is found guilty. They are saying mainly spoiled carpets, damage to walls etc, but she's saying it's all a load of rubbish and nothing occured that wasn't normal wear and tear and actually I believe her. she is however very frightened.Many thanks.
What is the likely sentence for causing that level of damage if she does get charged ( curently on bail) and is found guilty. They are saying mainly spoiled carpets, damage to walls etc, but she's saying it's all a load of rubbish and nothing occured that wasn't normal wear and tear and actually I believe her. she is however very frightened.Many thanks.
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by obNOXious. 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.
Can you give a little more info?
How did she come to leave the previous property, is anyone else jointly charged etc. I find it a bit strange that the police are pursuing her for CD for spoiled carpets and damage to walls unless it is clearly deliberate damage rather than wear and tear. Normally the police would just throw their hands up in horror and say "its civil".
Damage of that level would normally (I think) be triable either way. That means it is triable in the mags or the Crown. If the mags accept jurisdiction, max sentence is 6 mos. If they don't and send it to Crown, I can't remember what the max penalty is, but she is not going to attract anything like near the max. She could elect CC trial and put it before a jury if she is that believable (it is generally easier to get an acquittal at Crown rather than Mags).
If you can post more info, I'll dig into Blackstones Criminal Law and see if I can help further (although not tonight!!)
How did she come to leave the previous property, is anyone else jointly charged etc. I find it a bit strange that the police are pursuing her for CD for spoiled carpets and damage to walls unless it is clearly deliberate damage rather than wear and tear. Normally the police would just throw their hands up in horror and say "its civil".
Damage of that level would normally (I think) be triable either way. That means it is triable in the mags or the Crown. If the mags accept jurisdiction, max sentence is 6 mos. If they don't and send it to Crown, I can't remember what the max penalty is, but she is not going to attract anything like near the max. She could elect CC trial and put it before a jury if she is that believable (it is generally easier to get an acquittal at Crown rather than Mags).
If you can post more info, I'll dig into Blackstones Criminal Law and see if I can help further (although not tonight!!)
I should say that it won't automatically attract custodial - so don't worry her yet.
Does she have a solicitor. She should qualify for legal aid for an offence like that.
And when she is at the police station to answer bail for goodness sake do not let her be interviewed without a duty solicitor present.
Does she have a solicitor. She should qualify for legal aid for an offence like that.
And when she is at the police station to answer bail for goodness sake do not let her be interviewed without a duty solicitor present.
Hi Barmaid. I have lots more info now and it's roughly like this. they left the property because they couldn't keep up with the rent etc and the alleagaiton is that they 'sprinkled' some pink substance on the lounge carpet and that the carpets in the whole house needed to be replaced along with the aga and that apparently comes to �21,500.
the landlor is the local lord of the manor ( literally) and i'd imagine has friends in high places which might be why the police have not screamed 'civil' because i'm sure oif pne of my tenant had damaged one of my houses they would have as you rightly said.
The lady concerned said the pink mark on the carpet is cherryade and has receipts to prove she tried to clean it prior to moving out and dsaid that the Aga simply stopped working so they didn't use it since it was summer.
Apparenty the carpets throught this working farm were white and she admits that there were some marks but nothing that was not either simply accidental or normal wear and tear. They certianly are not accused of having gone round the place daubing graffitti or smashing things up etc. Her partner is a bit of an idiot but I wouldn't have either of them down as doing deliberate damage, theyre simply not the types to be honest and she's scared stiff if she gets a parking ticket so I really don't think she would do anything like this and i'm quite comfortable with her still being my tenant despite this.
She's not been charged yet but was quesitoned along with her partner and theyre both on police bail due to reappear to answer the charges or not.
Their previous landlord has lots of expert reports on the damage, but i'm none too comfortable with those tbh as he's in dire financial straights himself and the lady concerned isn't sure that he might not have damaged the house himself or exaggerated any damage to make an insurance claim.
It's all looking very grim but i really do feel she is telling the truth.
the landlor is the local lord of the manor ( literally) and i'd imagine has friends in high places which might be why the police have not screamed 'civil' because i'm sure oif pne of my tenant had damaged one of my houses they would have as you rightly said.
The lady concerned said the pink mark on the carpet is cherryade and has receipts to prove she tried to clean it prior to moving out and dsaid that the Aga simply stopped working so they didn't use it since it was summer.
Apparenty the carpets throught this working farm were white and she admits that there were some marks but nothing that was not either simply accidental or normal wear and tear. They certianly are not accused of having gone round the place daubing graffitti or smashing things up etc. Her partner is a bit of an idiot but I wouldn't have either of them down as doing deliberate damage, theyre simply not the types to be honest and she's scared stiff if she gets a parking ticket so I really don't think she would do anything like this and i'm quite comfortable with her still being my tenant despite this.
She's not been charged yet but was quesitoned along with her partner and theyre both on police bail due to reappear to answer the charges or not.
Their previous landlord has lots of expert reports on the damage, but i'm none too comfortable with those tbh as he's in dire financial straights himself and the lady concerned isn't sure that he might not have damaged the house himself or exaggerated any damage to make an insurance claim.
It's all looking very grim but i really do feel she is telling the truth.
Was no inventory check done by the tenants and landlord when they moved out? It should have been, & any subsequent damage is nothing to do with the tenants.
How long after they moved out were these complaints made, & how long after were the "expert" reports made?
How could they have damaged the Aga to such an extent that it had to be replaced? Is he claiming for the full cost of replacement? If so, how old was it & shouldn't depreciation be taken into account?
Don't you have to have criminal intent to be proved guilty of criminal damage (Barmaid will know)? If so, is there any credible evidence of intent?
How long after they moved out were these complaints made, & how long after were the "expert" reports made?
How could they have damaged the Aga to such an extent that it had to be replaced? Is he claiming for the full cost of replacement? If so, how old was it & shouldn't depreciation be taken into account?
Don't you have to have criminal intent to be proved guilty of criminal damage (Barmaid will know)? If so, is there any credible evidence of intent?
Well themas all very good points. To my knowledge the landlord and his agent were at the property the day before the lady moved out and said everything was okay. She's a trusting sort of person and took this as being exactly what they stated it was, okay.
Tha aga i believe is about 30 years old and simply stopped working. To my knowledge no damage as such was done to it, so quite what theyre on there I have no idea.
I've put them in touch with my solicitor who unfortunatly can't see them til next week, but my understanding was that criminal damage had to be intended and not simply accidental, otherwise anyone renting a house could be charged with it if, like them, their child spilled cherryade on the carpet. the whole thing stinks to me and i can't believe that the police have even entertained it except that their landlord has friends in very high places, which is bl00dy frightening.
Tha aga i believe is about 30 years old and simply stopped working. To my knowledge no damage as such was done to it, so quite what theyre on there I have no idea.
I've put them in touch with my solicitor who unfortunatly can't see them til next week, but my understanding was that criminal damage had to be intended and not simply accidental, otherwise anyone renting a house could be charged with it if, like them, their child spilled cherryade on the carpet. the whole thing stinks to me and i can't believe that the police have even entertained it except that their landlord has friends in very high places, which is bl00dy frightening.
"Any person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages property belonging to another..........being reckless as to whether such property be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence " {Criminal Damage Act] It's possible to commit the offence by being reckless.
Trouble for any potential prosecution is that 'reckless' is more than 'careless'. It amounts to a course of action which is itself is done knowingly and which any reasonable person would see must result in damage.If I am throwing rocks at people in a greenhouse, it's no answer for me to say that I did not intend to break the windows which got broken! It would be obvious to anyone else that that was a probable consequence, and my blind stupidity, however genuine , removes intent but not recklessness.
Now prove that what this woman has done amounts to 'reckless' ! No chance, on what you say ! At worst it sounds like the kind of damage which is entirely incidental to a tenancy. What's more, it would have to be proved that she either did the damage or was part of a joint enterprise, a party, to causing the damage with intent or recklessly.
The police are bound to investigate anything which could be a crime, on a complaint, but they've bailed the parties to see whether what they have is worth pursuing as a criminal matter [They take advice]. As Barmaid says, this looks like a civil matter, but remember the police do have that duty.If it ever got to a charge it would be worthwhile taking jury trial, because juries have common sense and take time to consider.
This wouldn't be the first time that a complainant has involved the police , perhaps to frighten someone or to intimidate others who deal with the complainant, in what is , prima facie, no more than a civil matter, and it won't be the last
Trouble for any potential prosecution is that 'reckless' is more than 'careless'. It amounts to a course of action which is itself is done knowingly and which any reasonable person would see must result in damage.If I am throwing rocks at people in a greenhouse, it's no answer for me to say that I did not intend to break the windows which got broken! It would be obvious to anyone else that that was a probable consequence, and my blind stupidity, however genuine , removes intent but not recklessness.
Now prove that what this woman has done amounts to 'reckless' ! No chance, on what you say ! At worst it sounds like the kind of damage which is entirely incidental to a tenancy. What's more, it would have to be proved that she either did the damage or was part of a joint enterprise, a party, to causing the damage with intent or recklessly.
The police are bound to investigate anything which could be a crime, on a complaint, but they've bailed the parties to see whether what they have is worth pursuing as a criminal matter [They take advice]. As Barmaid says, this looks like a civil matter, but remember the police do have that duty.If it ever got to a charge it would be worthwhile taking jury trial, because juries have common sense and take time to consider.
This wouldn't be the first time that a complainant has involved the police , perhaps to frighten someone or to intimidate others who deal with the complainant, in what is , prima facie, no more than a civil matter, and it won't be the last
fred's final para. is very relevant. It could well be the Landlord is trying to get some sort of criminal conviction in order to make it easier to then go to civil court for damages. It may be (I am not sure) that something like a Caution would serve his purpose. So she would be well advised not to accept such a thing without proper consideration & her own solicitor's advice.
It could be that his insurance policy is relevant.His insurers may not pay out for ordinary wear and tear which has damaged the walls, carpets or fixtures and fittings yet they may pay out for acts of criminal damage.
. I had one such household policy once.The insurers would not pay out for damage caused by any occupant or visitor unless such damage was caused by an act of criminal damage (strictly, as a matter of law, it was).I said it was.They immediately wanted to know the name of the culprit and details of the crime report and what action I had taken regarding involving the police. At that point I did not pursue any claim, since a) I'd not reported the act b) I really didn't want to drag my friend into it all, preferring to bear the loss.
This landlord may be thinking along those lines.His only hope, as he saw it, was to claim on insurance (no doubt to every penny he could think of) since the tenants or visitors would not be good for anything remotely approaching the cost and/or any deposit paid for damage was inadequate.
. I had one such household policy once.The insurers would not pay out for damage caused by any occupant or visitor unless such damage was caused by an act of criminal damage (strictly, as a matter of law, it was).I said it was.They immediately wanted to know the name of the culprit and details of the crime report and what action I had taken regarding involving the police. At that point I did not pursue any claim, since a) I'd not reported the act b) I really didn't want to drag my friend into it all, preferring to bear the loss.
This landlord may be thinking along those lines.His only hope, as he saw it, was to claim on insurance (no doubt to every penny he could think of) since the tenants or visitors would not be good for anything remotely approaching the cost and/or any deposit paid for damage was inadequate.
1 to 8 of 8
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles93 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles149 mins ago
ChatterBank189 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.