R v Hill [1988]


  • 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


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


  • No, conviction upheld


  • Acts done to protect properties from immediate damage must not be too remote
RELATED CASE  R v Dadson (1850)

Posted in Criminal Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 23rd December 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy