R v Denton [1982] 1 All ER 65 addressed the legal principles surrounding criminal damage and arson, particularly in situations involving the intentional destruction of property at someone else's request for fraudulent purposes.
Denton, the defendant employed by T, was instructed by his employer to set fire to T's business premises as part of an insurance fraud scheme. Denton followed the instructions and carried out the act of arson. Subsequently, Denton was charged with criminal damage and arson under Sections 1(1) and 1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
During the trial, the judge concluded that T, the employer, was not entitled to consent to the damage under Section 5(2)(a) of the 1971 Act due to his fraudulent intent. This led to Denton's conviction.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, overturning Denton's conviction. Lord Lane CJ, delivering the judgment, presented key considerations in the case.
Lord Lane highlighted that damaging one's own property is not a crime under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Therefore, if T had been charged, he would not have been convicted, as the act of damaging one's own property does not fall under the offences outlined in the Act.
The court reasoned that the fact that there was some dishonest intent, in this case, T's fraudulent scheme, did not transform an act that was not a crime (damaging one's own property) into a criminal offence. It would be considered anomalous for Denton, who executed the act at T's request, to be convicted when T himself would not have been.
Lord Lane emphasised that it was unnecessary for Denton to rely on Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which deals with lawful excuse, because he had a lawful excuse without it. The lawful excuse stemmed from the fact that T was lawfully entitled to burn down his own premises, and Denton genuinely believed in this entitlement.
This case underscores the legal principle that damaging one's own property, even with fraudulent intent, is not criminal damage under the specified legislation. It clarifies that the person carrying out the act at the request of the property owner, even with dishonest intentions, should not be convicted if the owner himself would not have been charged for the act.
Check out our exam-focused Criminal Law notes now.
Subscribe to UOL Case Bank for more exclusive content and case summaries.
