QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division)
MR JUSTICE RICHARDS
|THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR HARWOOD-STEVENSON (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
"(1)There was a general mayhem when the officers arrived.
"(2)PCs Aitken and Wylie were in agreement as to certain things. PC Aitken saw wires moving, and something fall to the ground. PC Wylie was behind and saw a youth with a keyboard in his hands. Both said the youth turned away from them, and something fell to the ground.
"(3)No inferences were drawn from the fact that no defendant has given evidence.
"(4)There is no dispute that all four defendants were in the hut.
"(5)Three defendants in interview admitted that they were there for an unlawful purpose.
"(6)Any attempt to remove fixtures and fittings would have led to damage.
"We are satisfied as to recklessness. The defendants would all have been aware that the hut had already been entered and items taken and damaged."
It will be noted that that announcement, although it contains a reference to recklessness, contains no reference to the intention of the defendants in general, and the appellant in particular, when entering the building.
"There is no dispute that the defendants were in the hut for an unlawful purpose. You entered knowing that others had been there. The evidence was all about you in the street.
"You were seen by police officers near equipment which was fixed. The two PCs saw what appeared to them to be an attempt to remove a piece of equipment.
"Any activity like that would have led to criminal damage. The removal of any item would have led to criminal damage.
"We believe it was in their minds to commit criminal damage at the point when they entered.
"We did not believe the reasons given by the boys in their statements.
"Our view is that, the boys, when they entered the hut, having seen what they had seen in the street, entered with a degree of recklessness, knowing that anything they removed would cause criminal damage."
The second question posed by the case is:
"2. Whether, in giving our judgment, our use of the words
"(i)'satisfied as to recklessness' and
"(ii)'entered with a degree of recklessness'
"gave the impression of applying the wrong test of the mental element required,
"and whether we came to a correct decision and determination in point of law."