跳至內容

用戶:だ＊ぜ/刑事損壞罪行 (英格蘭法律)

維基百科，自由的百科全書
維基百科中的法律相關內容僅供參考，並不能視作專業意見。如需獲取法律相關的幫助或意見，請諮詢所在司法管轄區的法律從業人士。詳見法律聲明。
一個被搗毀的商店櫥窗，攝於2005年5月7日

於英格蘭法律中，導致刑事損壞（英語：criminal damage）的行為本身就是一個普通法罪行。該罪行主要涉及對住房和食物供應的保護，而對破壞個人財產之裁決就相對較少。刑事損壞之刑責最初僅限於通過賠償方式支付的賠償金。

但隨着時間的推移，尤其是在工業革命期間機械化和城市化的興起期間，由於社會認為特例亦需受到法律規管，因此引入了具體的法律來處理特殊情況。

現今法律中的刑事損壞罪行，主要是根據《1971年刑事損壞法令》設立。《刑事損壞法令》重新定義並設立了若干條用於保護財產權的罪行。該法案提供了一個全面的，涵蓋對最嚴重的縱火罪行的準備行為，並造成意圖危害生命的損害結構。為此，該法之刑罰由定額罰款到終身監禁不等，且法院可以命令被告人向受害者支付賠償金。

歷史

[編輯]

普通法

[編輯]

普通法一般都視「對他人動產的損壞行為」為：一種只會導致侵犯權利（英語：Trespass）或妨礙行為（英語：Nuisance）的民事案件。

在18世紀時，布萊克斯通（英語：William Blackstone）定義道：

個人財產的所有權利可能受到兩種損害：被（帶走）[1]或剝奪該財產所有權。and the abuse or 損壞 of the chattels, while the possession continues in the legal owner."[2]

布萊克斯通（英語：William Blackstone）於其論點中，清晰地訂明：這些應被訂為「個人的不適當行為」；並強調：財產權were enforced各方之間（英語：Inter partes）, and that the State was not necessarily one of the involved parties,[3]。事實上，刑事法只是管理縱火行為。將其行為定義為「惡意和故意焚燒房屋或其他人的外屋」，這種法律保障延伸至穀倉，更甚者至「玉米堆」的保障。縱火罪於傳統上會被判處死刑[4]，而羅馬法亦是如此[5]。

早期立法

[編輯]

鑑於普通法是為了保護住所、類農業社會的財富與食物資源，以及工業革命的發展。於工業革命的法律保障較為突出的就屬，對盧德主義工人[註 1]的新規立法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]。

歸納統一

[編輯]

一些專門用於判處對某一特別類型之財產所造成之損壞行為的法例，被統一為「7 & 8 Geo.4 c.30 (1827)」（對財產的惡意損壞）。後者是皮尤法令（英語：Peel’s Acts）的其中一部法令。該法令與一些後續的成文法被統一歸納成1861年惡意損壞法令[8]。

1861年惡意損壞法令

[編輯]
主條目：1861年惡意損壞法令
參見：1861年刑事法律合併法令

1861年惡意損壞法令[9]是一個維多利亞時期的加強版成文法，其規定了詳細的保護財產的方式；之後的版本大部分被《1971年刑事損壞法令》所取代。現在仍於英格蘭及威爾斯施行之條款如下：

1971年刑事損壞法令

[編輯]

定義

[編輯]

雖然《1861年法令》詳細地保護了許多不同類型的財產[10]，但《1971年刑事損害法》提出更完善的定義，其足以適用於任何有形財產。 根據該法第1章第1條規定：

任何人在無合法辯解下，損毀或損害任何屬於他人的財產；或意圖損毀或損壞任何此類財產；或對任何此類財產在將被損毀或損壞的情況下置之不顧，即屬犯法。

無合法理由

[編輯]

除了適用於涉及暴力行為的任何罪行的一般自衛藉口外，該法第5章規定了與刑事損害有關的具體規定[10]：

如：

(a) 當時 … 他相信那個人 … 認為被賦予權力以同意損毀或損壞 … 無論是之前有同意過，或會眾所週知地將會獲得同意許可 … ；或
(b) 他破壞或損壞了 … 於爭議中之財產 … 以保護其他財產 … 且與此同時 … 其需堅信 ——
(i) 被受保護之財產 … 當時需要受到即時保護；且
(ii) 保護之手段 … 是 … 於所有情況及環境中皆為合理的，

則被告人存在合理辯解。

該法第5章第3條規定：在被告人誠實的基礎上，其所表達之理念需判斷是否合理。因此，由法例而設立了一個由法院或陪審團評估的主觀測試。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. 於Chamberlain v. Lindon (1998)[11]中，被告人Lindon 毀壞了一道牆以捍衛道路使用權（英語：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 財產 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 財產 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 損壞s a wheel clamp to free his car, having parked on another's 財產 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 ... 財產" – and therefore Denton, knowing this, had a lawful excuse independent of section 5.

損毀與損壞

[編輯]
這輛自行車的前輪可以說是「已被損毀」；但由於車輪可以更換，自行車本身並沒有被損毀。但總體而言，自行車已經「被損壞」

於每個案例或判例法中，無論毀壞還是損壞的發生是事情之事實還是程度之嚴重，其都建議被損害物之損壞程度必須高於一個公認的「最低限度（英語：de minimis）」。於A (a juvenile) v R（英語：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，但其污漬十分容易就可擦乾淨；所以，在《1971年法令》中被告人行為並未造成財產損壞。類似的判例如Morphitis v Salmon (1990)[19]，a scratch to a scaffolding pole did not affect its value or usefulness and thus 損壞 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 損壞.

It is sufficient that any 損壞 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 損壞. 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 損壞 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 損壞, albeit temporary.

財產

[編輯]

財產的定義 in the 1971 Act differs slightly from the Theft Act 1968[27] in that it only includes "財產 of a tangible nature".[28] Land can be 損壞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 損壞 to the land.

歸屬他人

[編輯]

該法第10（2）條規定：財產應視為屬於 -

（a）保管或控制；或
（b）擁有任何所有權或權益（不是僅由轉讓或授予權益的協議產生的公平利益）; 或
（c）收取費用，

之人士所有。

These provisions are similar to those set out in section 5 of 1968年盜竊法令 in relation to theft. It is clearly a right of 財產 ownership to deal with 財產 as one wishes, including its 損壞 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 財產.[30] 財產 that is abandoned has no owner, and cannot be stolen;[31] it follows that such 財產 cannot be the subject of a charge of criminal 損壞.

有意及無意

[編輯]

The mens rea of all offences in the Act is direct or oblique intention, or subjective recklessness as defined by the 上議院 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 損壞d the vehicle that hit him because "the appellant was aware of the risk and closed his mind to it".

嚴重刑事損壞

[編輯]

該法第1章第2條規定了一項罪行：其中包括第1章第1條中所描述的罪行的所有要素，以及有意或無意地危及生命之額外因素。犯罪的論證在於被告行為所導致的可能影響後果，因此沒有必要論證被告行為對生命的實際危險；但是，其損壞行為必須與被告的精神狀況存有關聯性。

在』』R v Steer（英語：R v Steer）』』 (1986)[35]中，被告開槍以意圖使他人受傷，但結果射偏並擊中一扇窗。雖然被告行為中「危害他人生命之意圖」與「損壞行為之事實」兩者共存，但損壞行為本身並不會危及人生安全。該法例的詮釋亦通過了R v Webster （1995）[36]——審判中關於「『損壞行為導致之事情』與『損壞行為預計會發生的事情』之間的關係」的探討——而得到了擴展。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 損壞 intended, or is reckless that life will be endangered by that 損壞. 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.

企圖

[編輯]

在指控被告犯罪時，不需要證明其危害生命的具體意圖。於「Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 1992 (1993)」[37]中，案中被告被起訴嚴重縱火罪，it was held to be sufficient for the prosecution to establish a specific intent to cause 損壞 by fire and that the defendant was reckless as to whether life would thereby be endangered.

縱火

[編輯]
參見：縱火 § 英格蘭&威爾斯&和香港

《1971年法令》第1條第3項訂明：第1條所指的罪行，如因火災而造成損毀或損壞，則須以縱火罪名起訴。似乎法院對與縱火相關的合法藉口辯護採取了有目的的觀點。在「R v Hunt (1977)」[38]中，被告希望通過在老人家中放火，以證明老人家中缺乏防火措施。他聲稱其誠實地認為，通過這樣做，他在第5條第2項中有合法的辯解；但是實際上，他並沒有採取行動以保護財產。雖然法院認為他的理念是真誠不假的；但裁定他的意圖是為了錯誤地提醒大眾注意防火，而不是保護財產本身。

威脅

[編輯]

第2條規定：

一個人威脅另一個人，意圖另一個人擔心威脅將會被執行：

(a) 損毀或損壞任何另一人或第三方之財物；或
(b) 以「他知道可能會危及另一人或第三者的生命的方式」摧毀或損壞他自己的財產，

即屬犯法。

物品所有權

[編輯]

第3條規定：

任何在其保管或控制下的任何人都有無合法理由使用或導致或允許他人使用：

(a) 損毀或損壞任何他人之財物；或
(b) 以「他知道可能會危及他人的生命的方式」摧毀或損壞他自己或他人的財產，

即屬犯法。

至於關於第3條a項的犯罪意圖判定，可以參考「R v Buckingham, 63 Cr App R 159, CA」。

範圍、處罰與程序

[編輯]

1971年法令適用於英格蘭及威爾斯，而於北愛爾蘭亦存在《1977年刑事損壞 (北愛爾蘭) 法令》[39]。

十分明顯的輕微損壞（如塗鴉之類）可能會處以定額罰款以代替起訴[40]。

非嚴重罪行包含價值被地方法官判定不超過£5,000的物品損壞；而其最高可判處刑期為3個月，且最高罰款為£2,500。如果財產損壞價值高於£5,000；則被告可以提交公訴書，以表達希望於陪審團的陪同下裁決的意願。但若於陪審團陪同下裁決；則其最高刑期可能會提高至6個月，且最高罰款為£5,000。如果案中財產價值不清，則法院可從代表中聽取估價建議；但法院亦可要求被告人給出估價之意見，並同時處以受限制之罰款[41]。

《1971年法令》第4條規定，第1條第2項及第1條第3項所訂的罪行，可判處最高終身監禁，而所有其他罪行最高可判處監禁十年。《1998年犯罪及動亂法令（英語：Crime and Disorder Act 1998）》[42]第30條中，對除了已經被處終身監禁的人之外的加重種族罪犯或加重宗教罪犯，規定了最高14年的監禁罪行。

授權於《2000年刑事法庭權力 (判刑) 法令（英語：the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000）》[43]第130條及第133條，法院獲准以命令被定罪之被告進行賠償支付之行為。關於法院權限方面，區域裁判法院（英語：Magistrates’ court (England and Wales)）的權力限制為每單案件只能處以最高£5,000的罰款；而刑事法院之權力則不受限制。

《1971年刑事損壞法令》取代並廢除了《1772年造船廠等之保護法令（英語：Dockyards, etc. Protection Act 1772）》[44]。後者設立了一個廣為人知為「於皇家船塢縱火罪（英語：arson in royal dockyards）」的死刑。對於對殺人犯的死刑於1965年時被廢除來說；這些死刑罪行似乎是被忽視了一樣，直到1967年才被廢除。

其他條目

[編輯]

註釋

[編輯]
  1. ^ 盧德主義導致工人認為機器搶走了當時的工人工作，從而開始破壞機器。

參考內容

[編輯]

文獻

[編輯]
  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] [永久失效連結].
  8. ^ Report on Malicious Damage 6. The Law Reform Commission of Ireland. [2009-04-21]. （原始內容存檔於February 7, 2008）. 
  9. ^ 1861年惡意損壞法令 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97).
  10. ^ 10.0 10.1 1971年刑事損壞法令 (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 損壞 (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 互聯網檔案館的存檔，存檔日期June 7, 2008，. (2000 c. 6).
  44. ^ Dockyards, etc. Protection Act 1772 (12 Geo. III c. 24).

書籍

[編輯]

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"