R v Parker (Daryl)

On 6th February of this year at St. Albans Crown Court, this Applicant was convicted of criminal damage. He was fined £10 payable within seven days with 14 days imprisonment in default. He was ordered to pay £50 towards his legal aid costs and 75p as compensation to the Post Office.

The Application was out of time but this Court has given leave, nevertheless, for the Application to be made and, now, with the agreement of Mr. Tager who appears on behalf of the Applicant, we propose to grant the Application for leave to appeal and to treat this hearing as the Appeal.

The facts of the case were these. Sometime between midnight and one oclock in the morning of Saturday, 11th January of last year, two police officers in a police car drove into the forecourt of Baldock Railway Station in Hertfordshire. They saw the Appellant in the telephone kiosk which stands outside that railway station and what they said they observed was this. They saw him raise the hand set of that telephone twice to head level and on each occasion bring the hand set down sharply-the words smashing down were used at one stage by the officers -on to the dialling unit of the telephone.

The hand set and rest on which it should normally be situated were the older type made of some plastic material-probably Bakelite. One of the officers approached the telephone kiosk, opened the door and he saw that part of the telephone rest was broken and some of the pieces were on the floor. He said to the Appellant: What have you done this for? The reply was: Im sorry. It then transpired that what had happened to lead up to this situation was as follows. The Appellant had been to some function in London and he had arrived at Kings Cross rather later than intended in order to catch a train to Stevenage. It was the last train of the evening. Unfortunately, he fell asleep in the train. Stevenage Station passed while he was still a sleep and he did not wake up until Baldock. He then got out of the train and it seems he was charged the excess fare for having travelled beyond his proper destination. He asked if he might use the telephone in the station-that is the stations private telephone, so to speak -and that request was refused but he was given change in order to enable him to use the telephone outside.

For some reason which is not altogether clear, he was unable to get in touch with the taxi service to whom he was endeavouring to telephone. Whether that was because all telephones in Baldock at that stage were in the process of being altered or whether it was because it was an old type of box and he failed to insert coins in the box before he dialled is not altogether clear and it does not matter. The upshot was that quite plainly this man was in a great temper and quite plainly the explanation of the situation was partly his frustration at the series of events which had befallen him that evening and partly in anger at the telephone for failing to operate according to his wishes. The facts to that extent were not greatly in dispute.

What was in dispute was, first of all, whether it was this man who had caused the damage to the telephone receiver-he said it was not he who had caused the damage-and, secondly, the degree of force which he had used when bringing the hand set down on to the receiver. The way in which the Appellant himself when giving evidence described the situation was this (at page 11 of the transcript): I went to the telephone box to call a taxi. I put two pence on the slot-not in, but on-I picked up the headset; (that must have been the handset), I heard a tone, I did not know it was necessary to put two pence in before dialling. I dialled two or three times without success. I put the headset down, hard. It did not fit on to the cradle so I put it down hard again. I did not lift it before putting it down the first time. I must have missed the cradle the first time. I did not intend to damage it nor was I reckless as to whether I damaged it or not. It did not occur to me that what I was doing might damage it. I was simply reacting to the frustration which I felt. As I put the telephone down hard for the second time there were the police opening the door. That was the way in which he put it.

The complaint made by Mr. Tager on behalf of the Appellant is that the learned Judge misdirected the Jury in regard to the necessary mental element upon which the Jury had to be satisfied before convicting. The Section of the Act in question reads as follows. Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 reads: A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any...