In The Court Of Appeal (Criminal Division) between: Regina, Respondant, v. Sam, Appellant
Introduction
This is a submission on behalf of the appellant in the matter of Regina v Sam now being appealed to the court of appeal (Criminal Division).
Salient Facts
- On the 26th July a fire was discovered in a large field of wheat.
- The farm was owned by Western Foods limited but run by a tenant farmer named Adam Macey.
- Police arrested Sam who is Tony’s niece a neighbor to Adam who admitted being responsible for the arson.
- On apprehension she stated that she knew Adam from school.
- She made the decision to commit arson after she had been drinking in the pub with a group of fellow environmentalists.
- Sam was charged with Criminal Damage contrary to S1 (3).
- At her trial Sam raised two defenses:
- First that she believed the owner consented to the damage or would have done had they known of the circumstances.
- Secondly that she destroyed the property because she believed this to be the only way to protect the property from immediate threat.
Two grounds of appeal
2. The appellant will be dealing with two grounds of appeal by which it is claimed:
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
- Her defense of lawful excuse under S5 (2)(a) was untenable and they should disregard this as Western Foods would never have consented to the damage of the crop and her belief was clouded by her consumption of alcohol.
- A defense under S5 2(b) was not sustainable because she was not protecting the property – the orchard – as she was really working as an environmental activist and the protection was too remote.
First submission appeal 1
3. In the case of Jaggard v. Dickinson - [1981, Q.B. 527] despite breaking and entry the decision was held to allow an appeal based on statute. The case relied on section 5 (2)(a) of the Criminal damage Act 1971 which indicated: If at the time of the act alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the damage of the property in question would have so consented to it [Jaggard v. Dickinson, 1981, Q.B. 527] [Criminal Damage Act, 1971, s5 (2)(a)].
4. This provides Sam with a defense to the charge because at the time of the alleged offence, she honestly believed that the person whom she believed to be entitled to consent (Adam) would have so consented. Mr. Adam was a school friend and also a neighbor to Miss Sam’s uncle. This clearly indicates that there was some sort of mutual day to day understanding or interaction. Therefore, after hearing Adam talking negative about the plantation of the crops this made Sam honestly believe she would have gained consent over the damages to the land.
5. Based on the decision held in Jaggard v. Dickinson of allowing the appeal. The appellant was able to rely on her mistaken belief even though she was in an intoxicated state. In the same way Miss Sam held the same belief that she had consent from Mr Adam.
Second submission appeal 1
6. I submit that the appellants judgment was not clouded due to the voluntary consumption of alcohol as per the principles set out in the case of R v. Kingston 1994 3 WLR 519. Where it was held: “That although the drugs had essentially done away with Kingston’ inhibitions they did not negative the necessary mental element'. This shows her judgment was not clouded as she was part of an environmentalist group before the consumption of alcohol. Therefore, when under the influence her actions and thoughts aligned with the submission of her offence [R v. Kingston, 1994, 3 WLR 519].
7. The appellant was also able to give a reasoned account of what happened as she immediately admitted being responsible for the arson. On apprehension she stated reasons for carrying out the offence, which was the fact that she was concerned, GM was damaging the environment and the welfare of the planet. Therefore, her judgement was not clouded by her consumption of alcohol as her confession had structure. This also shows remorse due to her nature of immediate admittance and concern for the environment as there was no personal gain or benefit.
First submission appeal 2
8. A fire was discovered in a large field of wheat. The field was destroyed at Ambridge Farm which was situated close to Bridge Farm an organic fruit growing small holding owned by Tony Archer. Sam stated that she was concerned that GM was damaging the environment and therefore the welfare of the planet. This would also severely affect the value of her uncle’s crops.
9. This shows “that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances” [Criminal Damage Act, 1971, s5 (2)(b)(ii)].
10. Gm are detrimental to neighboring land because it consists of causing contamination to none GM crops of the same spices “including cross pollination of neighboring crops”. This shows that Sam had reasonable grounds to destroy the wheat field under the defense of the criminal damage act 1971 [Genewatch UK].
Second Submission appeal 2
11. The judge erred in directing the jury that Sam’s defense under S5 2(b) was not sustainable because she was not protecting the property as she was really working as an environmental activist and the protection was too remote.
12. HHJ Grundy was mistaken in applying the case of Hill and Hall which took a narrow view of remoteness and failed to apply a subjective test to the belief held by the defendant. The Applicant states she was in genuine fear about the livelihood of Uncle Tony and the organic nature of the orchard at Bridge Farm.
13. In the case of Hill and Hall the defendants' acts would be too remote from the eventual harm they were protecting the property from” it may have been too remote as it states, “in the event of a war”. This shows there is nothing to suggest there was a war and that their property would be damaged at any time. They were protecting the property from eventual harm, but in this scenario the threat is her uncle’s property as per the sections - s5(2)(b) (i) “that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection” [R V Hill And Hall, 1989, 89, CR APP R 74] [Criminal Damage Act, 1971, s5 (2)(b)(i)].
14. In the case of Hill and Hall “where the defendant broke in to a us naval base in England as they held an honest belief that in the event of a war the base would be subject of a nuclear attack. The damage would affect the defendant’s property this was held to be to remote as they were protecting their property from eventual harm”. In contrast the wheat had already been planted and thus would be immediate harm.
Conclusion
15. Miss Sam has held the reasonable belief that she had lawful excuse under S5 (2) (a) and (b). That she gained consent to set the farm alight. Also, her judgment was not clouded and her actions had reason for her to be protecting the environment in all circumstances as her family members property would have been affected showing that she had an interest in the property and by setting GM wheat on fire was needed as a immediate cause of action. However, with Sam it was not to remote as immediate affects could have caused substantial detriment to her uncle if she had not acted showing her property rights and interests of immediate protection.
What I would like the courts to do?
16. So, I hereby submit that on these grounds you dismiss the conviction and uphold the appeal.
Bibliography
Cases:
- Jaggard V. Dickinson - [1981] Q.B. 527
- R V Hill And Hall (1989) 89 CR APP R 74
- R v Kingston [1994] 3 WLR 519
Statute
- “Without Lawfull Excuse” Criminal Damage Act, 197, s5 (2)(a)(i)(ii)
Website
- 'Genewatch Uk – Contamination An Coexsitance – How Can Gm Contamination Of Crops Be Provented?'
Stuck on your essay?
