Washable paint - criminal damage - discuss

[Mattsmum2]

https://news.sky.com/story/man-who-vandalised-churchill-statue-in-parliament-square-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-damage-13586144

does this mean we can all commit potential criminal damage by using washable paint?

Judge is an arse.

At a guess only if it supports the latest trendy political or environmental cause. The judge like many others these days is either too political themselves to be fair or just scared of the retaliation from pro pal nutters like we have seen before.

I’m appalled at the verdict. A similar thing happened a few years ago, a different cause, but the young man who defaced the statue was found guilty, and had to pay a fine.

If, as the perpetrator stated, the paint is washable, the very least that should have happened was to make him clean it off.

Yes, it's still criminal damage.

Same as for the girls who thought they were edgy by throwing tomato soup on a Van Gogh painting. Which was covered in a protective case.

BBC News - Activists jailed for throwing soup on Sunflowers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly7zy3d3exo

Fuck around, find out IMO.

That’s exactly what it means. Criminal damage involves destroying or damaging property. It’s right there in the name. If the property was not damaged and can be washed clean then it’s not criminal damage.

If you use “washable” paint but it still happens to damage the thing you’ve painted it on through something like a chemical reaction or due to a porous surface, then it can still be criminal damage.

You can’t be convicted of criminal damage without damage though. Surely that’s obvious.

The difference is that they caused damage. The painting was protected but they caused damage to the frame.

I haven't heard the case, I've only read a short summary.

From what I read, the defendant argued that he hadn't committed criminal damage because the statue wasn't damaged, and the court accepted this.

If it incurs a cost to repair/clean, then its criminal damage

If its painted with washable paint - then to return its former glory you will have to employ someone to do it, you can't just rely on the rain to do it

If its chalk pictures/marks on the path - then the rain will clear it after a downpour

He was found not guilty by a jury.

Possibly directed to do so by the judge

Apparently cost to clean £7,000.

From what I’ve read it wasn’t a direction from the judge. But if it was it would be because there wasn’t sufficient evidence, in which case the CPS are to blame for bringing the case this far and wasting everyone’s time.

I thought that he admitted doing it - but used the excuse that it was water based paint so it would wash off

If that is the case, the CPS have all the evidence they need to show that he caused the damage to the statue - hence it was the correct decision to charge him.

It appears to be a case of legal argument as to what constitutes criminal damage as opposed to whether he had done it or not.

I think the court have returned the wrong decision. Its an iconic statue in London which will be an attraction for sightseers and should not be defaced in such away. It needed to be returned to its former glory asap which cost £7000 - therefore its criminal damage.

I'm not sure that costs to put right means it was criminal damage.
The flags put on lamposts cost lots of money to take down but this is not considered criminal damage.

I think criminal damage means something was damaged.

I would love to see how the fuck 'washing the paint off soon after' as it says in the article cost £7000.

I think people should be allowed to protest peacefully in parliament square including temporarily defacing statues as long as what they say does not incite hatred and violence against someone currently alive. I must say that point is debatable in this case but clearly the jury thought it did not constitute criminal damage.

The cost would include a cleaning company attending and I would guess working from height would need scaffolding etc, then the cost of the person doing the cleaning, chemicals, jet wash - it soon mounts up

I think they should not be able to deface statues for their 'peaceful protest' - where would that end....? Can you imagine that being done to a war memorial for example

I think it was criminal damage and should have been found guilty of such

The - flags on the lampposts - i think falls into a different crime category, something to do with tampering with roadside furniture

I think it's sigificant was that the aim was to put out a message, whether you agree with it or not, not to permanently damage a monument. And it wasn't damaged.

Eggs wash off, and manure, I'm sure people have been done for using them on statues and buildings.

To test can someone to go and deface a statue for a less acceptable cause, maybe 'stop the boats', and see if they get the same outcome.

Well either the jury acquitted him, in which case they were unpersuaded by the CPS, or the judge directed the acquittal, which can only happen if there is insufficient evidence.

Unless you know more about it than the jury or the judge?

It might not be a case of 'insufficient evidence', it might be a case of a legal argument took place.

Insufficient evidence is what the jury has to decide on - whether there is enough evidence to prove the accused as guilty or innocent. Its not something which a judge can decide on in a jury trial.

If the guy has admitted to doing it - then that's all the evidence you need.
The case seems to have come down to whether its criminal damage or not - technically in law. And this technicality is what was argued at court (possibly before the trial actually got started) with legal arguments between the defence, prosecution and the judge.

I think it is criminal damage - as did the police & CPS. Its caused damage which incurred a cost to rectify

Can you imagine if I came to your house and painted the front of your house & windows, and your car with emulsion paint - would you be happy if the courts said that I have done nothing wrong?