Criminal damage meaning

Is land contamination an issue? According to the Law Society’s practice note on contaminated land, solicitors ought to assess potential contamination in every conveyancing matter they handle. It explains that, while only a minority of deals will be materially affected, practitioners must remain alert to possible environmental liabilities and think carefully about the enquiries and specialist support their clients might need—see Practice Note: Land contamination—Law Society practice note on contaminated land. Notably, the note summarises the contaminated land framework set out in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990), including a concise explanation of who bears responsibility for remediation of contaminated land. Beyond clean-up obligations imposed under the EPA 1990, Pt IIA, contamination can also give rise to the following liabilities: clean-up duties under other regulatory schemes, eg environmental damage, works notices, or environmental permitting regimes civil claims, eg nuisance, negligence, or breach of contract criminal exposure, eg non-compliance with a remediation notice Refer to Practice Note: Environmental...

Peter Carter KC of Doughty Street Chambers, who headed the FCA prosecution, obtained the guilty verdict against Mohammed Zina, sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment in February. The matter carried notable intricacies, particularly because Goldman Sachs’ server sat in the US, which influenced the timing of transactions. From April 2019, Carter devoted over 800 hours to preparation and spent ten weeks before the court, supported by his junior counsel, Rachel Barnes KC of Three Raymond Buildings. Carter has tried other prominent insider‑dealing prosecutions for the FCA and its precursor. He has handled similar high‑profile insider‑dealing matters for the FCA and its predecessor body before, and knows their challenges. He understands how hard it is to secure a conviction, and tells Law360 how, for all the government’s lip service, it gives inadequate backing to the FCA’s related enforcement work. As every major bank, insurer, wealth manager and asset manager in the UK scrutinises the Zina case, Carter sets out who is drawn into insider dealing, how financial institutions must guard against rogue...

Robinson v Al-Qasimi ([2021] EWCA Civ 862) What are the practical implications of this judgment? This ruling sets out how far the Supreme Court’s stance on illegality in the insider dealing case of Patel has influenced employment-related illegality jurisprudence. In Patel, the Supreme Court held, amongst other things, that: the fundamental justification for the illegality doctrine is that upholding a claim would conflict with the public interest if it would damage the integrity of the legal system (or, potentially, certain elements of public morality) when determining whether the public interest would be harmed in that way, one must apply a ‘trio of necessary considerations’: whether denying the claim would further the underlying aim of the breached prohibition (for example, laws proscribing insider dealing) any other relevant public policy that the refusal of the claim might affect, and whether refusing the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality (bearing in mind that punishment is a matter...

The High Court rejected an application by Asante Berko, who was an executive director in Goldman's natural-resources group, to avoid standing trial in the US. He is accused of corrupting officials over plans for a power station in the West African nation. Judge Charles Bourne concluded the purported offences were closely connected to alleged damage to Goldman Sachs, a US-based financial institution, and to more widespread detriment to the American financial system—even if the bulk of the impact would have been felt in Ghana and some in the United Kingdom. Some harm from the alleged wrongdoing would have taken place in the United States, Judge Bourne noted in his written judgment...

This Practice Note provides an overview of the legal framework and practical context for whistleblowing under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). It offers high-level guidance for organisations and supports the drafting of your whistleblowing policy and procedures. It is not a handbook for managing whistleblowing claims, which is an employment law issue. What is whistleblowing? Whistleblowing refers to a worker disclosing information about wrongdoing (ie making a disclosure), usually—though not always—arising in the workplace. For whistleblowing protections to apply, the worker must reasonably believe they are acting in the public interest and that the disclosure points to past, current, or likely future wrongdoing within one or more of these categories: criminal offences (eg fraud) failure to meet a legal obligation miscarriages of justice risks to someone’s health and safety damage to the environment from 6 April 2026, sexual harassment concealment of wrongdoing in these categories Whistleblowing legislation is contained in the ERA 1996, as...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

Damage to property caused by fire is charged as arson A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or harms another’s property by fire, intending that outcome or being reckless as to whether it occurs, commits arson under section 1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA 1971). For guidance on criminal damage generally, see Practice Note: Criminal damage. In R v Booth, the omission of any reference to arson in the particulars led the court to treat the indictment as a nullity. The point was considered again in R v Drayton, where the court held that the allegation must, at the very least, be identified as ‘damage by fire’, ensuring the defendant is in no doubt that fire damage is alleged, an accusation carrying a harsher sentence than straightforward criminal damage. This is because arson attracts sterner penalties than simple criminal damage, by clear comparison. Simple arson, where no risk to life is alleged, is an either-way offence. Where the damage relied upon amounts to ‘significant damage by fire’,...

1 Introduction 1.1 Despite many dedicated efforts to prevent them, bribery and corruption still represent a major issue in world trade. Our legal duties are primarily governed by the Bribery Act 2010. As a UK company, that legislation applies to us if bribery occurs anywhere in our business. 1.2 Involvement in bribery or corruption exposes the Company and relevant individuals to a criminal offence under the law. It will also damage our reputation and the confidence of our clients, suppliers and business partners. 1.3 Our stance is clear: we carry out our business to the highest legal and ethical standards. We will not participate in bribery or corruption in any guise. Such conduct would harm our reputation and place the Company, its employees and representatives, at risk of fines and imprisonment. 1.4 We operate our business with integrity and in an honest, ethical way. All of us must work together to ensure our business remains untainted by bribery or corruption...

The issue here is between ‘a claim for personal injuries’, and ‘a claim in negligence or in battery’ This distinction confuses the category of harm (and the relief for it) with the juridical basis of liability. ‘Personal injury’ is not a tort at all—it is a type of harm flowing from a tort, which in turn generates a legal entitlement to redress. It must be differentiated from other forms of physical harm—for example, loss to property—and from other tortious invasions of personal rights (for instance, the reputational harm occasioned by the tort of defamation). The former labels damage; the latter names the actionable wrong...