A road barrier was set up at the end of a private road to prevent members of the public from accessing it. However, a man got angry with the restriction and decided to unscrew the different sections of the road barrier. He left them and the screws on the side of the road. The barrier owner had to hire a technician to put the barrier back in place. The technician was able to do so using all the original fittings, which were still in perfect working order.
Is the man guilty of committing criminal damage?
A road barrier was set up at the end of a private road to prevent members of the public from accessing it. However, a man got angry with the restriction and decided to unscrew the different sections of the road barrier. He left them and the screws on the side of the road. The barrier owner had to hire a technician to put the barrier back in place. The technician was able to do so using all the original fittings, which were still in perfect working order.
Is the man guilty of committing criminal damage?
Yes, because the impairment to usefulness was more than minimal.
(D) The man in question has been found guilty of committing criminal damage. Criminal damage is when a person intentionally destroys or damages property that belongs to someone else or does so recklessly without any regard for the damage caused. In this case, the barrier was intentionally dismantled by the man, causing more than minimal impairment of its value and usefulness. Although the barrier can be repaired and the parts are not physically damaged, it still requires a technician to put it back together again, which is more than minimal damage.
Therefore, options (A) and (B) are incorrect as they are irrelevant to the situation.
Option (C) is also incorrect as the damage was done intentionally.
Option (E) is incorrect as the damage caused to the barrier's usefulness is more than minimal, rendering it completely non-functional.