PROCURATOR FISCAL, PETERHEAD AGAINST LYN ELRICK [2017] ScotSC 14 (24 March 2017)

PROCURATOR FISCAL, PETERHEAD AGAINST LYN ELRICK [2017] ScotSC 14 (24 March 2017)

Joint ownership does not preclude criminal liability for vandalism, as the property still belongs to another. The facts permit the inference that the accused did not honestly believe she was an owner, and even if she did, damaging jointly owned property interferes with the rights of the other owner. The Crown has provided sufficient evidence to repel the submission of no case to answer.

Citation
[2017] ScotSC 14
Parties
Pursuer: Procurator Fiscal, Peterhead; Defender: Lyn Elrick
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Submission of No Case to Answer Under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure (scotland) Act 1995
Outcome
Submission of no case to answer repelled; case to proceed.
Legal Topics
Vandalism, Joint Ownership, Reasonable Excuse, Criminal Damage
Criminal Law Vandalism Joint Ownership Reasonable Excuse Criminal Damage

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Procurator Fiscal, Peterhead

Pursuer

Lyn Elrick

Defender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Submission of No Case to Answer Under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure (scotland) Act 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an honest but mistaken belief of joint ownership constitutes a reasonable excuse for vandalism
  2. 2 Whether joint ownership precludes criminal liability for damaging property
  3. 3 Whether the Crown has established absence of reasonable excuse

Ratio Decidendi

Joint ownership does not preclude criminal liability for vandalism, as the property still belongs to another. The facts permit the inference that the accused did not honestly believe she was an owner, and even if she did, damaging jointly owned property interferes with the rights of the other owner. The Crown has provided sufficient evidence to repel the submission of no case to answer.

Court Disposition

Submission of no case to answer repelled; case to proceed.