Talk:Criminal damage in English law/GA1

Good Article review
I have set out below the good article criteria, the extent to which they are met by this article, and comments for improving the article.

1. It is well written. In this respect:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * [[Image:X mark.svg|20px]] N See the detailed comments below.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Y Yes.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
 * (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
 * (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
 * (c) contains no original research.


 * [[Image:X mark.svg|20px]] N The article is inadequately referenced to secondary sources, such as criminal law textbooks, and therefore appears to be the product of original research. A number of quotations are not fully referenced. See the detailed comments below.
 * See my further comments below. — JackLee,, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
 * (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and
 * (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Y Yes.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Y Yes.

5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Y Yes.

6. It is illustrated, if possible, by images.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Y There are currently no images in the article. The article will look better if one or two suitable images are included, but a lack of images will not prevent the article from achieving Good Article status.
 * ✅ - some relevant free-content images found & added

General

 * The article should be renamed "Criminal damage in English law" (with a small "d"): see Manual of Style. Use the "Move" tab. Similarly, throughout the article, use "criminal damage" and not "Criminal Damage".


 * Your citation of cases is currently rather idiosyncratic. I suggest giving the case name and year in parentheses in the main text, with the citation and link to the full text of the case (if available) in a footnote, like this: " R v. G & Anor. (2003) ". To avoid causing Wikitext problems when using square brackets to enclose the year in citations, use ASCII codes (click on the "Edit" link for this subsection to see what I did).


 * Wherever possible, cite cases to published law reports rather than use neutral citations. However, provide a link to the full text of the decision on BAILII if available.
 * ✅ - not many of these cases are on BAILII


 * Many case citations lack round or square brackets around the years. Please insert them.


 * Please provide citations for statutes and other pieces of legislation in footnote, and link the citations to the full texts of the legislation on the website of the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI), like this: " Theft Act 1968 ".


 * As far as possible, when providing cites for quotations, state the page or paragraph number of the source at which the quotation can be found.
 * ✅ - wherever possible


 * Footnote numbers at the ends of clauses or sentences should generally appear after punctuation marks.


 * All footnotes should end with a full stop.


 * Leave out the "(HTML)" in footnotes.

Lead section

 * The lead section does not really summarize the article adequately. Expand it to capture the gist of the article.
 * ✅ - expanded roughly to match major historical sections.

Common law

 * Indicate the year when Blackstone's statement was made to give readers an idea of how old the common law concept is.
 * ✅ - within limits, exact date difficult to source


 * Explain the meaning of "amotion" in the text.
 * ✅ - thumbnail definition, referenced


 * Provide fuller citations for websites and books that you cite. For a website, provide the name of the website's publisher so readers can decide how reliable it is. For books, use the cite book template and provide full bibliographic information (including author's name, place of publication, publisher, year of publication and ISBN number, if available).

Early legislation

 * Explain what "machine-breaking" was.
 * ✅ - footnoted & linked to Luddite

Malicious Damage Act 1861

 * "victorian" → "Victorian".


 * You shouldn't refer to "the 1971 Act" because at this point in the text you haven't yet introduced this Act. Refer to it by its full name.


 * The relationship between ss. 35 and 36 of the 1861 Act needs to be better explained. You need to get across the idea that s. 36 is the lesser offence that punishes negligent commission of the actus reus, while s. 35 is the more serious offence where there is intent involved.
 * ✅ - with appropriate links


 * Section 72 of the Act requires more explanation.
 * ✅ - contextualised

Definition

 * In an appropriate place, provide a full citation to the Act and a link to the full text of the Act on the OPSI website.
 * ✅ - it's on OPSI but only as PDF format


 * Shouldn't the quotation from s. 1(1) end in a full stop?


 * The headings of subsections of the "Definition" section which are quotations from the definition of criminal damage should be in double quotation marks, thus: ' "Without lawful excuse" ', ' "Destroys or damages" ', etc. Otherwise, they need to be rephrased so that they do not appear to fragmentary, for example, like this: "Lack of lawful excuse", "Destruction or damage", etc.

"Without lawful excuse"

 * Ellipses should only contain three full stops.


 * R v. Hill and Hall: you mention "defendants" but then "She claimed..."
 * ✅ - both claimed this, in fact.


 * R v. Denton: why was the factory owner entitled to have the factory burned down? This seems puzzling and needs to be explained.
 * LCJ seems to have accepted this without authority, does it really need a cite?
 * It doesn't need a cite, but it needed some explanation, which you've provided. — JackLee,, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"Destroys or damages"

 * The subsection heading should quote s. 1(1) accurately, and so should be "Destroy s or damage s ".


 * Morphitis v. Salmon: provide a pinpoint citation (to the page or paragraph number of the case) for the quotation.
 * - case is not online, but referred to in R v Whiteley, so pinpoint reference not available as report is Crim LR.
 * You should try to look up the printed report, if possible. — JackLee,, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Criminal Law Review do not report in as much detail as, say, All ER or WLR. They set out facts, arguments and decision, but rarely paragraph numbers. Sadly, for many useful cases, they are the only report and in the same league as Road Traffic Reports or Lloyd's LR in that respect.


 * Link "computer hacking" to a suitable Wikipedia article.
 * ✅ - not a great article, but it's the only one we have
 * Well, we work with the tools we have. — JackLee,, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"Belonging to another"

 * There's no need to have both bullet and letters ("(a)", "(b)", etc.). Eliminate the bullets.


 * "... destruction; however a person ..." → "... destruction. However, a person..."


 * The last paragraph needs a citation.
 * - this is so general there must be a cite for it somewhere.
 * ✅ ref to Lysaght v Edwards, leading case on rights of mortgagee but prior to LPA 1925.

Intent and recklessness

 * Eliminate the bullets.


 * Why are the first two items in the list numbered (i) and (ii), but the third item not numbered (iii)?
 * The third governs "risk" in both (i) & (ii) so is part of the main text.


 * Chamberlain v. Lindon: provide a pinpoint citation for the quotation.
 * ✅ - found corrected quotation & added para to BAILII citation

Aggravated criminal damage

 * Beginning the paragraph with "The variant created by section 1(2) ..." is puzzling – the reader is apt to ask, "What variant?" Work some mention of aggravated criminal damage into the paragraph.
 * ✅ - reworded to avoid this doubt
 * I've reworded it further. — JackLee,, 29 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "defendants actions" → "defendant's actions".


 * "... life, however there ..." → " ... life. However, there ..."

Arson

 * "... within section 5(2), but it was held ..." → "... within section 5(2). However, it was held ..." (sentence is too long).
 * ✅ recast

Threats and Possession of items

 * Eliminate the bullets.

Extent, penalties and procedure

 * Full stop at the end of the first sentence missing (add it before the footnote number).
 * ✅ added


 * See if you can provide an updated link to the full text of the Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 at the OPSI website. The current link that you have used has a security certificate issue.
 * ✅ OPSI link added


 * The bullet points in this subsection seem unnecessary. Rewrite the list items in continuous prose.


 * "Section 30 ... sets out ..."


 * Rephrase the last sentence to remove the two occurrences of "which" – perhaps "that were overlooked".

Standard appendices; categories

 * The "See also" section should be removed for now. I don't see how a link to the article "Case citation" is at all relevant.
 * ✅ - removed


 * "References" should be renamed "Notes". For the difference between the two appendices, see Layout.
 * ✅ - renamed


 * As I've suggested you provide a link to the full text of the 1971 Act in the main text, it should be removed from "External links". The other two links may be more appropriate in a "Further reading" section.
 * ✅ - removed & renamed


 * "Category:Law enforcement in the United Kingdom" is an inappropriate category for this article. I believe that category is for articles relating to policing.
 * ✅ - removed

I've put the article on hold; leave a message on my talk page when you've completed updating the article or if you need more time to make changes. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Further comments
I've taken the liberty of doing a cleanup of the article. I have a few more comments:
 * The minor one is that you should provide fuller source information for the "FrameBreaking.jpg" image that you uploaded. See "Image:JodocusHondius-ChristianKnightMap-1597.jpg" for an example from the Wikimedia Commons.
 * ✅ - this seems to be a fairly standard image and is used on several websites; it's clearly contemporary and therefore long out of copyright.


 * I've rephrased the following sentence in the "Aggravated criminal damage" subsection, as the original sentence was missing something: "Therefore, although a defendant does not necessarily intend to endanger life when he intends to break a car window, ignoring the likely risk that this will cause the driver to swerve into the path of another vehicle, perhaps fatally, constitutes recklessness and is a sufficient causative nexus." Please check that it conveys what you intend it to mean.
 * This is roughly it, although the intention need not be specifically to break car windows, it could be just to frighten drivers or "for kicks", but it's clear that "closing one's mind" to the consequences constitutes recklessness.


 * The more important comment is that before I upgrade the article to GA status I think there do need to be more references to secondary sources in order to comply with the "no original research" policy. I realize you've already done a fair bit to try and remedy this by including references to websites, but it's better to try and get this matter sorted out now then for me to pass the article and then to have another editor downgrade the article later on following a GA review. If you can get to a fairly large library (it doesn't have to be a law library), you should be able to get hold of Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice and Halsbury's Laws of England – some references to these works should suffice.
 * Hopefully can get to my local college library later on today.

How much more time do you think you'll need? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Only a day or two; I'll let you know when I've done that. Thanks for your helpful improvements. -- Rodhull andemu  02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have not had a very fruitful day; the local college library has a handful of low-level textbooks, none of which has any deep critical commentary, although a couple of relevant cases have come to light. The pubic library is useless; in the whole of Wiltshire there is not one copy of Archbold! The local solicitors no longer have criminal practices since the magistrates' court was closed down, so don't have any "old" books kicking around. The charity shops are barren, as is Waterstone's, and I can't afford the, what £450? for a copy. If I could reasonably get to Hay-on-Wye I might conceivably find a copy, and I can't afford to get to the nearest university in Bath. I will try this evening to find some online sources, but in particular Morphitis v Salmon, being a Criminal Law Review report, will not have the text of the judgement anywhere outside the Divisional Court's own repository. It would help if you could outline which parts of the article apart from that suffer from original research and I'll do what I can, but if the choice is between eating and spending money going to Bath for a day, I do have to eat. -- Rodhull andemu  17:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about that. Well, Archbold is a practitioner's text, so smaller libraries are not likely to have copies of it, but it's surprising you can't find one in the whole of Wiltshire (or is that a bit of hyperbole?). I certainly wouldn't expect you to purchase a copy or go to other unnecessary expense just for the purpose of this article. If you really can't get hold of any suitable law texts at the moment (e.g., Halsbury's Laws), what about using the two sources you've put in the "Further reading" section? I think the facts that need further referencing are only these:
 * Common law: "The common law generally treated damage to another's chattels as a civil matter leading only to a right to damages in trespass or nuisance ..." – the quotation from Blackstone is interesting but I feel it doesn't bring this point home very clearly. Perhaps some explication of Blackstone's quotation is required.
 * ✅ have taken Blackstone's heading of "Private Wrongs" from the cited reference & explained that the State did not involve itself in such disputes.


 * Early legislation: "However at this time the general criminal law afforded no protection for purely personal chattels."
 * ✅ since it's impossible, or at best intractable, to try and prove a negative, I think this has to go. Doubtless there were certain specific protections but these will be scattered about in all sorts of obscure legislation and it's not vital for the article to offer evidence of this.


 * Malicious Damage Act 1861: "It largely survives in the Republic of Ireland and many Commonwealth countries which had been parts of the British Empire in 1861, including Canada, Trinidad & Tobago and numerous former British African colonies."
 * ✅ - difficult to source, but on looking into it, have found that Ireland have actually replaced it, and their 1988 Law Commission report is actually a useful commentary on the 1861 Act, so have added that to the "See Also". Canada seems to have replaced it with their Criminal Code, but can't find a repeal, so have omitted this. The only other Commonwealth country still seeming to use it is Sierra Leone, so have left this in as an example. I think what's left, being sourced, can be justified.

The information in the "Criminal Damage Act 1971" is from the Act itself or from cases, so no further referencing is required. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 22:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that; it makes things easier. Having looked at the cases I've found, the points they consider are not deal-breakers as far as completeness of the article is concerned, and they are not in BAILII, so perhaps they can wait. The three points you raise above could be dealt with fairly easily, and I will deal with them ASAP, and let you know when I have done this. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu  22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I have now addressed remaining concerns and this article can find its rightful place as a rare example of a Law Good Article. -- Rodhull andemu  00:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that will do nicely. Congratulations on getting the article up to GA status! I'll be archiving this GA review at "Talk:Criminal damage in English law/GA1" shortly. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 12:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)