跳转到内容

用户:だ＊ぜ/刑事损坏罪行 (英格兰法律)

维基百科，自由的百科全书
维基百科中的法律相关内容仅供参考，并不能视作专业意见。如需获取法律相关的帮助或意见，请咨询所在司法管辖区的法律从业人士。详见法律声明。
一个被捣毁的商店橱窗，摄于2005年5月7日

于英格兰法律中，导致刑事损坏（英语：criminal damage）的行为本身就是一个普通法罪行。该罪行主要涉及对住房和食物供应的保护，而对破坏个人财产之裁决就相对较少。刑事损坏之刑责最初仅限于通过赔偿方式支付的赔偿金。

但随着时间的推移，尤其是在工业革命期间机械化和城市化的兴起期间，由于社会认为特例亦需受到法律规管，因此引入了具体的法律来处理特殊情况。

现今法律中的刑事损坏罪行，主要是根据《1971年刑事损坏法令》设立。《刑事损坏法令》重新定义并设立了若干条用于保护财产权的罪行。该法案提供了一个全面的，涵盖对最严重的纵火罪行的准备行为，并造成意图危害生命的损害结构。为此，该法之刑罚由定额罚款到终身监禁不等，且法院可以命令被告人向受害者支付赔偿金。

历史[编辑]

普通法[编辑]

普通法一般都视“对他人动产的损坏行为”为：一种只会导致侵犯权利（英语：Trespass）或妨碍行为（英语：Nuisance）的民事案件。

在18世纪时，布莱克斯通（英语：William Blackstone）定义道：

个人财产的所有权利可能受到两种损害：被（带走）[1]或剥夺该财产所有权。and the abuse or 损坏 of the chattels, while the possession continues in the legal owner."[2]

布莱克斯通（英语：William Blackstone）于其论点中，清晰地订明：这些应被订为“个人的不适当行为”；并强调：财产权were enforced各方之间（英语：Inter partes）, and that the State was not necessarily one of the involved parties,[3]。事实上，刑事法只是管理纵火行为。将其行为定义为“恶意和故意焚烧房屋或其他人的外屋”，这种法律保障延伸至谷仓，更甚者至“玉米堆”的保障。纵火罪于传统上会被判处死刑[4]，而罗马法亦是如此[5]。

早期立法[编辑]

鉴于普通法是为了保护住所、类农业社会的财富与食物资源，以及工业革命的发展。于工业革命的法律保障较为突出的就属，对卢德主义工人[注 1]的新规立法resulting from workers' perceived threats to their livelihood, required new legislation to match the circumstances. The reaction of Parliament to Luddism was to criminalise machine-breaking – the destruction of textile-making machinery – as early as 1721.[6]。Initially the punishment was transportation to the Colonies but as a result of continued opposition to mechanisation the Frame-Breaking Act of 1812 made the 死刑 available[7]。

归纳统一[编辑]

一些专门用于判处对某一特别类型之财产所造成之损坏行为的法例，被统一为“7 & 8 Geo.4 c.30 (1827)”（对财产的恶意损坏）。后者是皮尤法令（英语：Peel’s Acts）的其中一部法令。该法令与一些后续的成文法被统一归纳成1861年恶意损坏法令[8]。

1861年恶意损坏法令[编辑]

主条目：1861年恶意损坏法令
参见：1861年刑事法律合并法令

1861年恶意损坏法令[9]是一个维多利亚时期的加强版成文法，其规定了详细的保护财产的方式；之后的版本大部分被《1971年刑事损坏法令》所取代。现在仍于英格兰及威尔士施行之条款如下：

1971年刑事损坏法令[编辑]

定义[编辑]

虽然《1861年法令》详细地保护了许多不同类型的财产[10]，但《1971年刑事损害法》提出更完善的定义，其足以适用于任何有形财产。 根据该法第1章第1条规定：

任何人在无合法辩解下，损毁或损害任何属于他人的财产；或意图损毁或损坏任何此类财产；或对任何此类财产在将被损毁或损坏的情况下置之不顾，即属犯法。

无合法理由[编辑]

除了适用于涉及暴力行为的任何罪行的一般自卫借口外，该法第5章规定了与刑事损害有关的具体规定[10]：

如：

(a) 当时 … 他相信那个人 … 认为被赋予权力以同意损毁或损坏 … 无论是之前有同意过，或会众所周知地将会获得同意许可 … ；或
(b) 他破坏或损坏了 … 于争议中之财产 … 以保护其他财产 … 且与此同时 … 其需坚信 ——
(i) 被受保护之财产 … 当时需要受到即时保护；且
(ii) 保护之手段 … 是 … 于所有情况及环境中皆为合理的，

则被告人存在合理辩解。

该法第5章第3条规定：在被告人诚实的基础上，其所表达之理念需判断是否合理。因此，由法例而设立了一个由法院或陪审团评估的主观测试。Section 5(3) of the Act states that it is immaterial whether the defendant's belief is justified as long as it is an honest belief, and therefore creates a subjective test to be assessed by the court or jury. 于Chamberlain v. Lindon (1998)[11]中，被告人Lindon 毁坏了一道墙以捍卫道路使用权（英语：Rights of way in England and Wales）, honestly believing that it was a reasonable means of avoiding litigation. It was said that:

In the criminal context the question is not whether the means of protection adopted by the respondent were objectively reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, but whether the respondent believed them to be so, and by virtue of section 5(3) it is immaterial whether his belief was justified, provided it was honestly held.[12]

However, in R v Hill and Hall (1989),[13] the Court of Appeal introduced an objective element to part (b) of the defence. The defendants had been convicted of possession of a hacksaw blade outside a US naval base in Wales, having admitted an intention to use the blade to cut through the base's perimeter fence. They claimed a lawful excuse in that they had acted to protect their own 财产 located near the base; their reasoning was that the base would at some point in the future attract a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. Given that Hill was "forced to admit that she did not expect a nuclear bomb to fall today or tomorrow",[14] the Court concluded that this threat to 财产 was too remote and thus the defence had not been made out, however honest the belief had been.

The case of Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)[15] held that even a drunken belief will support the defence even though this allows drunkenness to negate basic intent; and Lloyd v DPP (1992)[16] ruled that a motorist who 损坏s a wheel clamp to free his car, having parked on another's 财产 knowing of the risk of being clamped, does not have a lawful excuse under the Act even if he makes a mistake of law.

The courts have said that a defendant relying upon lawful excuse as a defence need not necessarily seek to put himself within section 5. In R v Denton (1981),[17] the defendant had been asked by his employer to set fire to the employer's factory to facilitate an insurance claim. Despite this, it was held that the owner of the factory was entitled to have it burned down – as the Lord Chief Justice put it, "[i]t is not an offence for a man to set light to his own ... 财产" – and therefore Denton, knowing this, had a lawful excuse independent of section 5.

损毁与损坏[编辑]

这辆自行车的前轮可以说是“已被损毁”；但由于车轮可以更换，自行车本身并没有被损毁。但总体而言，自行车已经“被损坏”

于每个案例或判例法中，无论毁坏还是损坏的发生是事情之事实还是程度之严重，其都建议被损害物之损坏程度必须高于一个公认的“最低限度（英语：de minimis）”。于A (a juvenile) v R（英语：A (a juvenile) v R） (1978)[18]中，被告人向一位警官的雨衣外套吐了一口口水，但其污渍十分容易就可擦干净；所以，在《1971年法令》中被告人行为并未造成财产损坏。类似的判例如Morphitis v Salmon (1990)[19]，a scratch to a scaffolding pole did not affect its value or usefulness and thus 损坏 had not been proved. The court said:

A different conclusion was reached in Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary (1986),[21] where graffiti, although eventually removable by action of rainfall, was actually washed away by the local authority, incurring expense, was held to be criminal 损坏.

It is sufficient that any 损坏 be merely temporary: in Cox v Riley (1986),[22] the deletion of the program from a computer-controlled machine, rendering it unusable, was held to constitute 损坏. This decision was followed in R v. Whiteley (1991) in relation to computer hacking,[23] although that conduct is now dealt with under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.[24] In that case it was said that:

In R v Fiak (2005),[26] the defendant used a clean blanket to block the toilet of the police cell he was occupying, causing the water to overflow and flood his and other cells. The defence argued that clean water had flooded on to a waterproof floor, and that in the process the blanket was soaked by clean water. The blanket would have been reusable when dry. Cleaning up a wet cell floor did not constitute 损坏 to the cell itself. The Court of Appeal noted that this argument assumed the absence of any possible contamination or infection from the lavatory itself, and held that while it is true that the effect of the appellant's actions in relation to the blanket and the cell were both remediable, the simple reality was that the blanket could not be used as a blanket by any other prisoner until it had been dried out and cleaned. Further, the flooded cells remained out of action until the water had been cleared. Thus, both had sustained 损坏, albeit temporary.

财产[编辑]

财产的定义 in the 1971 Act differs slightly from the Theft Act 1968[27] in that it only includes "财产 of a tangible nature".[28] Land can be 损坏d, as in Henderson and Batley (1984),[29] where the defendants had dumped rubble on a development site which cost a substantial sum to clear; it was held that this constituted 损坏 to the land.

归属他人[编辑]

该法第10（2）条规定：财产应视为属于 -

（a）保管或控制；或
（b）拥有任何所有权或权益（不是仅由转让或授予权益的协议产生的公平利益）; 或
（c）收取费用，

之人士所有。

These provisions are similar to those set out in section 5 of 1968年盗窃法令 in relation to theft. It is clearly a right of 财产 ownership to deal with 财产 as one wishes, including its 损坏 or destruction. However a person setting fire to his own house which is subject to a mortgage can be charged because the mortgagee will have a proprietary right or interest in the 财产.[30] 财产 that is abandoned has no owner, and cannot be stolen;[31] it follows that such 财产 cannot be the subject of a charge of criminal 损坏.

有意及无意[编辑]

The mens rea of all offences in the Act is direct or oblique intention, or subjective recklessness as defined by the 上议院 in R v G (2003).[32] Bingham L.J. stated that a person acts "recklessly" with respect to

(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; or
(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;

and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.[33] In Booth v. Crown Prosecution Service (2006)[34] the Divisional Court upheld the defendant pedestrian's conviction on a charge that, by rashly dashing into the road, he recklessly 损坏d the vehicle that hit him because "the appellant was aware of the risk and closed his mind to it".

严重刑事损坏[编辑]

该法第1章第2条规定了一项罪行：其中包括第1章第1条中所描述的罪行的所有要素，以及有意或无意地危及生命之额外因素。犯罪的论证在于被告行为所导致的可能影响后果，因此没有必要论证被告行为对生命的实际危险；但是，其损坏行为必须与被告的精神状况存有关联性。

在’’R v Steer（英语：R v Steer）’’ (1986)[35]中，被告开枪以意图使他人受伤，但结果射偏并击中一扇窗。虽然被告行为中“危害他人生命之意图”与“损坏行为之事实”两者共存，但损坏行为本身并不会危及人生安全。该法例的诠释亦通过了R v Webster （1995）[36]——审判中关于“‘损坏行为导致之事情’与‘损坏行为预计会发生的事情’之间的关系”的探讨——而得到了扩展。That case involved the throwing of heavy items into the paths of moving vehicles, and it was held that a defendant may be guilty if he intends to endanger life by the actual 损坏 intended, or is reckless that life will be endangered by that 损坏. Therefore, although a defendant does not necessarily intend to endanger life when he intends to break a car window, ignoring the likely risk that this will cause the driver to swerve into the path of another vehicle, perhaps fatally, constitutes recklessness and is a sufficient causative nexus.

企图[编辑]

在指控被告犯罪时，不需要证明其危害生命的具体意图。于“Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 1992 (1993)”[37]中，案中被告被起诉严重纵火罪，it was held to be sufficient for the prosecution to establish a specific intent to cause 损坏 by fire and that the defendant was reckless as to whether life would thereby be endangered.

纵火[编辑]

参见：纵火 § 英格兰&威尔士&和香港

《1971年法令》第1条第3项订明：第1条所指的罪行，如因火灾而造成损毁或损坏，则须以纵火罪名起诉。似乎法院对与纵火相关的合法借口辩护采取了有目的的观点。在“R v Hunt (1977)”[38]中，被告希望通过在老人家中放火，以证明老人家中缺乏防火措施。他声称其诚实地认为，通过这样做，他在第5条第2项中有合法的辩解；但是实际上，他并没有采取行动以保护财产。虽然法院认为他的理念是真诚不假的；但裁定他的意图是为了错误地提醒大众注意防火，而不是保护财产本身。

威胁[编辑]

第2条规定：

一个人威胁另一个人，意图另一个人担心威胁将会被执行：

(a) 损毁或损坏任何另一人或第三方之财物；或
(b) 以“他知道可能会危及另一人或第三者的生命的方式”摧毁或损坏他自己的财产，

即属犯法。

物品所有权[编辑]

第3条规定：

任何在其保管或控制下的任何人都有无合法理由使用或导致或允许他人使用：

(a) 损毁或损坏任何他人之财物；或
(b) 以“他知道可能会危及他人的生命的方式”摧毁或损坏他自己或他人的财产，

即属犯法。

至于关于第3条a项的犯罪意图判定，可以参考“R v Buckingham, 63 Cr App R 159, CA”。

范围、处罚与程序[编辑]

1971年法令适用于英格兰及威尔士，而于北爱尔兰亦存在《1977年刑事损坏 (北爱尔兰) 法令》[39]。

十分明显的轻微损坏（如涂鸦之类）可能会处以定额罚款以代替起诉[40]。

非严重罪行包含价值被地方法官判定不超过£5,000的物品损坏；而其最高可判处刑期为3个月，且最高罚款为£2,500。如果财产损坏价值高于£5,000；则被告可以提交公诉书，以表达希望于陪审团的陪同下裁决的意愿。但若于陪审团陪同下裁决；则其最高刑期可能会提高至6个月，且最高罚款为£5,000。如果案中财产价值不清，则法院可从代表中听取估价建议；但法院亦可要求被告人给出估价之意见，并同时处以受限制之罚款[41]。

《1971年法令》第4条规定，第1条第2项及第1条第3项所订的罪行，可判处最高终身监禁，而所有其他罪行最高可判处监禁十年。《1998年犯罪及动乱法令（英语：Crime and Disorder Act 1998）》[42]第30条中，对除了已经被处终身监禁的人之外的加重种族罪犯或加重宗教罪犯，规定了最高14年的监禁罪行。

授权于《2000年刑事法庭权力 (判刑) 法令（英语：the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000）》[43]第130条及第133条，法院获准以命令被定罪之被告进行赔偿支付之行为。关于法院权限方面，区域裁判法院（英语：Magistrates’ court (England and Wales)）的权力限制为每单案件只能处以最高£5,000的罚款；而刑事法院之权力则不受限制。

《1971年刑事损坏法令》取代并废除了《1772年造船厂等之保护法令（英语：Dockyards, etc. Protection Act 1772）》[44]。后者设立了一个广为人知为“于皇家船坞纵火罪（英语：arson in royal dockyards）”的死刑。对于对杀人犯的死刑于1965年时被废除来说；这些死刑罪行似乎是被忽视了一样，直到1967年才被废除。

其他条目[编辑]

注释[编辑]

  1. ^ 卢德主义导致工人认为机器抢走了当时的工人工作，从而开始破坏机器。

参考内容[编辑]

文献[编辑]

  1. ^ Amotion. The Free Dictionary. 
  2. ^ William Blackstone, Of Injuries to Personal 財產 [Book the Third, Chapter the Ninth], Commentaries on the Laws of England, Oxford: Clarendon Press (reproduced at The Avalon Project at Yale Law School), 1765–1769 [2008-06-01] 
  3. ^ William Blackstone, Of Offenses against the Habitations of Individuals [Book the Fourth, Chapter the Sixteenth], 關於英格蘭法律的評論, Oxford: Clarendon Press (reproduced on The Avalon Project at Yale Law School), 1765–1769 [2008-06-01] .
  4. ^ William Blackstone, Of Offenses against the Habitations of Individuals [Book the Fourth, Chapter the Sixteenth], Commentaries on the Laws of England, Oxford: Clarendon Press (reproduced on The Avalon Project at Yale Law School), 1765–1769 [2008-06-01] 
  5. ^ Adolf Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Philadelphia, Pa.: American Philosophical Society, 1953, ISBN 1-58477-142-9 
  6. ^ Marjorie Bloy, The Age of George III, A Web of English History, [2008-06-01] .
  7. ^ Karly Walters, Law, "Terror", and the Frame-Breaking Act, Economic History Society, 2004 [2008-06-01] [永久失效链接].
  8. ^ Report on Malicious Damage 6. The Law Reform Commission of Ireland. [2009-04-21]. （原始内容存档于February 7, 2008）. 
  9. ^ 1861年恶意损坏法令 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97).
  10. ^ 10.0 10.1 1971年刑事损坏法令 (1971 c. 48)
  11. ^ Chamberlain v. Lindon [1989] EWHC 329.
  12. ^ Chamberlain v. Lindon per Sullivan J. at para. 50.
  13. ^ R v. Hill and Hall [1989] 89 Cr. App. Rep. 74.
  14. ^ Tony Storey; Alan Lidbury, Criminal Law 3rd, Cullompton, Devon: Willan: 204, 2004, ISBN 1-84392-100-6 .
  15. ^ Jaggard v Dickinson [1980] 3 All E.R. 716.
  16. ^ Lloyd v. DPP [1992] 1 All E.R. 982.
  17. ^ R v. Denton [1981] EWCA 4.
  18. ^ A (a juvenile) v. R [1978] Crim. L.R. 689.
  19. ^ Digested as Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim. L.R. 48, Q.B.D.
  20. ^ Morphitis v. Salmon per Auld J., transcript of unreported judgment cited in R v Whiteley (1991) 93 Cr. App. R. 25 at 29. See also the digest [1978] Crim. L.R. 48 at 49.
  21. ^ Hardman v. Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [1986] Crim. L.R. 330.
  22. ^ Cox v. Riley [1986] 83 Cr. App. R. 54.
  23. ^ Bloy, Duncan; Denis Lanser; Philip Parry, Principles of Criminal Law, Routledge-Cavendish: 382, 2000 [2010-09-04], ISBN 978-1-85941-580-1 
  24. ^ Computer Misuse Act 1990 (1990 c. 18).
  25. ^ R v Whiteley, at 29 per Lord Lane C.J.
  26. ^ R v. Fiak [2005] EWCA 2381.
  27. ^ Theft Act 1968 (1968 c. 60).
  28. ^ Section 10 of the Act.
  29. ^ 1984, unreported, C.A., cited in R v. Whiteley (1991) 93 Cr. App. Rep. 25.
  30. ^ There will arise "a right to the purchase-money, a charge or lien on the estate for the security of that purchase-money, and a right to retain possession of the estate until the purchase-money is paid", per Lord Jessel M.R. in Lysaght v. Edwards (1876) 2 Ch. D. 499.
  31. ^ Theft Acts, Incorporating the Charging Standard: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service. Crown Prosecution Service. [2009-05-07]. 
  32. ^ R v. G [2003] UKHL 50.
  33. ^ R v. G, at para. 41.
  34. ^ Booth v. Crown Prosecution Service [2006] EWHC 192.
  35. ^ R v. Steer [1986] UKHL 6.
  36. ^ R v. Webster [1995] 2 All E.R. 168, C.A.
  37. ^ Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 1992 [1993] 2 All E.R. 121.
  38. ^ R v Hunt (1977) 66 Cr. App. R. 105.
  39. ^ Criminal 损坏 (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977 No. 426 (N.I. 4)).
  40. ^ Tackling vandalism, Home Office, 2006-11-16 [2008-06-02] .
  41. ^ Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (1980 c. 43), section 22. See also "Magistrates' Courts Act 1980".
  42. ^ Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (1998 c. 37).
  43. ^ Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期June 7, 2008，. (2000 c. 6).
  44. ^ Dockyards, etc. Protection Act 1772 (12 Geo. III c. 24).

书籍[编辑]

Template:English criminal law navbox

取自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:だ＊ぜ/刑事損壞罪行_(英格蘭法律)&oldid=80205459”