Cresswell & Anor v DPP [2006] EWHC 3379 (Admin) (30 November 2006)

Cresswell & Anor v DPP [2006] EWHC 3379 (Admin) (30 November 2006)

Badgers in the field at the relevant time were not 'property' nor 'property belonging to another' under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, as they were not in the course of being reduced into possession nor under the custody or control of DEFRA. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 does not bind the Crown, so DEFRA officials were not committing a criminal offence. The common law defence of protection of property was not available as the appellants did not honestly believe a crime was being committed.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3379 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Fiona Cresswell; Claimant: Donald Currie; Defendant: DPP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal From Crown Court to High Court (divisional Court)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Criminal Damage, Lawful Excuse Defence, Protection of Animals, Statutory Interpretation, Crown Immunity, Common Law Defences
Criminal Law Animal Law Administrative Law Criminal Damage Lawful Excuse Defence Protection of Animals Statutory Interpretation Crown Immunity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona Cresswell

Claimant

Donald Currie

Claimant

DPP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal From Crown Court to High Court (divisional Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether wild badgers were 'property' or 'property belonging to another' under the Criminal Damage Act 1971
  2. 2 Whether the defence of lawful excuse under section 5(2)(b) of the 1971 Act applied to the destruction of badger traps
  3. 3 Whether DEFRA officials' actions constituted a crime under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, and whether the Act binds the Crown

Ratio Decidendi

Badgers in the field at the relevant time were not 'property' nor 'property belonging to another' under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, as they were not in the course of being reduced into possession nor under the custody or control of DEFRA. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 does not bind the Crown, so DEFRA officials were not committing a criminal offence. The common law defence of protection of property was not available as the appellants did not honestly believe a crime was being committed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No costs order made except for assessment of legal aid costs of the appellants