Cresswell & Anor v DPP

Cresswell & Anor v DPP

Badgers in the field were not 'property' nor did they belong to DEFRA at the relevant time, so the lawful excuse defence under section 5(2)(b) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 did not apply. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 does not bind the Crown, so DEFRA officials were not committing an offence. The common law defence of protection of property was not available as the appellants did not honestly believe a crime was being committed.

Parties
1st Claimant: Fiona Cresswell; 2nd Claimant: Donald Currie; Defendant: DPP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal From Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Criminal Damage, Lawful Excuse Defence, Protection of Badgers, Crown Immunity, Common Law Defence
Criminal Law Wildlife Law Criminal Damage Lawful Excuse Defence Protection of Badgers Crown Immunity Common Law Defence

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

1st Claimant

Donald Currie

2nd Claimant

DPP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether badgers were 'property' within the meaning of the Criminal Damage Act 1971
  2. 2 Whether the defence of lawful excuse under section 5(2)(b) of the 1971 Act applied
  3. 3 Whether DEFRA officials were committing an offence under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992

Ratio Decidendi

Badgers in the field were not 'property' nor did they belong to DEFRA at the relevant time, so the lawful excuse defence under section 5(2)(b) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 did not apply. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 does not bind the Crown, so DEFRA officials were not committing an 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

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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