- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Lloyd (1992) QBD - Criminal Damage and Lawful Excuse
I. Case Citation:
I. Case Citation:
- Lloyd (1992) QBD
- Defendant (D): Parked their car in a private car park without permission.
- Action Taken by Car Park Owner: Car was clamped.
- Defendant's Response: Illegally removed the clamp (without paying the fee) and retrieved their car.
- Charge: Criminal damage to the padlocks of the wheel clamp.
- D claimed they had "lawful authority" to cut off the padlocks.
- Basis of Defence: The clamping of their car constituted a "trespass to his car."
- Even if Trespass: The court acknowledged that, even if the clamping could be considered a trespass to the car, D had effectively consented to the risk of being clamped by parking without permission.
- Consequence of Consent: Due to this implied consent to the risk, D was "not in a position to complain when it occurred."
- Nature of the Wrong: D suffered, at worst, a civil wrong.
- Appropriate Remedy: D's proper course of action was to seek remedy in the civil courts, not resort to self-help.
- Self-Help Principle: The use of "self-help, using force," is only permissible when "there was no other reasonable alternative."
- Conclusion: D had no lawful excuse for causing criminal damage.
- Criminal Damage: This case reinforces the definition of criminal damage and the requirement for a "lawful excuse" to avoid liability.
- Lawful Excuse: The defence of lawful excuse is not available when an individual could have pursued legal civil remedies.
- Consent to Risk: Parking in a private area without permission implies an acceptance of the potential consequences, such as clamping.
- Civil vs. Criminal Wrong: Highlights the distinction between civil wrongs (where monetary damages or injunctions are sought) and criminal wrongs (where the state prosecutes for a breach of law).
- Limitations of Self-Help: Emphasizes that forceful self-help is a last resort and generally not a valid defence where other legal avenues exist.
0 Comments