Criminal Damage Practice Questions

Free NPPF Step 2 Criminal Damage questions with full answers, for Sergeant and Inspector candidates.

20+ questions in the full bankType A format

About this topic

Criminal damage questions test what counts as damage and property, when a defendant has lawful excuse, and the aggravated offence where life is endangered.

Know the statutory lawful excuse defences, arson, threats to damage, possession with intent, and related offences such as contaminating goods.

Key legislation and cases

Criminal Damage Act 1971, ss.1-5
Public Order Act 1986, s.38

Worked examples

Try each question before opening the answer. Every option is explained, because the exam usually turns on why the near-miss answers are wrong.

Worked question 1 of 2Standard

Marcus sets fire to an empty building he owns intending to claim on the insurance. He does not intend to endanger life but a firefighter is injured putting out the blaze. DC Patel considers the appropriate charges. Which of the following correctly states the relationship between arson and the Criminal Damage Act 1971?

AArson is a separate statutory offence created by s.1(3) CDA 1971 with different elements from criminal damage, charged independently of s.1(1) and s.1(2).
BArson under s.1(3) CDA 1971 is criminal damage or aggravated criminal damage committed by fire - the maximum sentence is life imprisonment for both the basic and aggravated forms of arson.
CArson under s.1(3) CDA 1971 is committed only where fire is used to endanger life - setting fire to property without intent to endanger life is simple criminal damage even if fire is the method used.
DArson under s.1(3) CDA 1971 is criminal damage committed by fire - where life is also endangered the offence becomes aggravated arson with a maximum of 14 years.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B

Under s.1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971 arson is committed where an offence under s.1(1) or s.1(2) is committed by destroying or damaging property by fire. This creates simple arson (s.1(1) by fire) and aggravated arson (s.1(2) by fire). Both carry a maximum of life imprisonment under s.4 CDA 1971. The use of fire does not change the elements of the underlying offence - it is the method that transforms criminal damage into arson.

s.1(3) and s.4 Criminal Damage Act 1971

s.1(3): An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging any property by fire shall be charged as arson.

A: Arson is not a separate offence with different elements. It is s.1(1) or s.1(2) committed by fire. The elements of criminal damage and aggravated criminal damage apply - s.1(3) specifies that fire as the method attracts the higher maximum.
C: Arson under s.1(3) covers both s.1(1) and s.1(2). Setting fire to property without intent to endanger life is still arson - it is s.1(1) committed by fire. Endangerment of life is not required for the basic arson offence.
D: The maximum for aggravated arson is life imprisonment - not 14 years. Both forms of arson carry life as the maximum under s.4 CDA 1971.

Worked question 2 of 2Standard

Holloway throws a brick through the window of a flat above a shop, intending to damage the window. He is reckless as to whether anyone inside would be endangered. DC Barker considers whether Holloway has committed aggravated criminal damage under s.1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Which of the following correctly states the s.1(2) elements?

As.1(2) requires that the defendant intended to endanger life - recklessness as to whether life is endangered is not sufficient for the aggravated offence.
Bs.1(2) requires that life was actually endangered as a result of the damage - where no one was present in the building, the aggravated offence cannot be made out.
Cs.1(2) requires that the defendant intended or was reckless as to whether life would be endangered by the act of destroying or damaging property - endangerment by the act of throwing the brick itself, rather than by the damage, does not suffice.
Ds.1(2) requires that the defendant intended or was reckless as to whether life would be endangered by the destruction or damage to the property - and Holloway's recklessness as to endangerment satisfies the mental element even without intent.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D

Under s.1(2) CDA 1971, the aggravated offence is committed where the defendant destroys or damages property intending to endanger life or being reckless as to whether life would be endangered by the destruction or damage. Recklessness is sufficient - intent to endanger is not required. In R v Steer [1987], the House of Lords confirmed that the endangerment must be by the destruction or damage itself, not by the act of causing the damage. Holloway's recklessness satisfies the mental element on these facts.

s.1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971; R v Steer [1987] UKHL

s.1(2): "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property... intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered; shall be guilty of an offence."

A: Recklessness as to whether life is endangered is sufficient for s.1(2). Intent to endanger is not required - it is one of two alternative mental elements.
B: Life does not need to have been actually endangered. The offence is complete where the defendant intended or was reckless as to endangerment - the absence of anyone present is irrelevant.
C: Option C correctly identifies the destruction or damage requirement but gets the analysis wrong on these facts. Option D accurately states the recklessness sufficiency point.

Practise every Criminal Damage question

The full bank has 20+ questions on Criminal Damage and over 1,100 across the whole syllabus, each with the statute and an explanation for every option. £29 for 6 months.

Get full access Try 5 free questions