Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Smith (D) was a tenant in a rented flat. D got the landlord’s permission and installed sound equipment and soundproofing material. D and his brother installed electric wiring, roofing material, asbestos wall panels, and floorboards. Eventually, D gave notice that he was moving and the landlord refused permission for D’s brother to stay. D proceeded to remove what he had previously installed. D was indicted under the Act for damaging property belonging to another. Legally the soundproofing had become a fixture of the property and at that point belonged to the landlord. D presented evidence that he believed it was his property he was damaging as he had installed it. The trial judge refused to hear it and instructed the jury that the only valid defense under the Act was that D had a lawful excuse. The judge instructed the jury that D’s belief that the property was his was a mistake and that a mistake was not a lawful excuse. D was found guilty. D appealed contending he lacked the mens rea of the offence as he believed that since he had paid for the panels he had a right to damage them.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co