Howard Neil wrote:

Zak wrote:

I think that the extent of the criminal in this case damage is rather
limited. I do not propose to etch the windscreen or to actually
damage it.
In fact with a bit of work and the right solvents and a good pair of
overalls it could all be sorted out in half an hour. No more than a
tenner including labout I would guess.

If you are the driver and have to go and fetch those items but have no
car to travel in then it would take much longer.

Hardly worth pursuing a court case over.


You do not have to actually cause damage to be convicted of Criminal
Damage.

One of the earlier cases brought under the Criminal Damage Act 1971
involved a tyre being let down. The person was convicted of Criminal
Damage and appealed. The appeal court, on upholding the conviction, said
that the act of letting down the tyre had caused the owner to take an
action that he would not have otherwise have had to do (pumping up the
tyre).

By affixing the sticky label, you would cause the owner to take an
action that he would not have otherwise have had to do and, therefore,
would be committing an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Blimey.

So if you are coming down the road and a car is coing toward the main
road from a side turning, you are commiting criminal damage, by forcing
him to stop, which he otherwise would not have had to do?