R v Hill [1988]

Facts

  • Hill (and his co-defendant, Hall), used wire cutters on the fence of a military compound, honestly believing that the act was protecting their own properties

Issue

  • Did this belief constitute a lawful excuse to criminal damage?

Decision

  • No, conviction upheld

Reasoning

  • Acts done to protect properties from immediate damage must not be too remote
RELATED CASE  R v Tabbassum [2000]

Posted in Criminal Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 23rd December 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy