No problem Wizking. I like pondering issues like this, keeps my knowledge ticking over nicely with real life stories. I emailed my thoughts on this article to my lecturer who taught us criminal law (he is also a former criminal law barrister) and he agreed entirely.

He also added that intent could be found due to the farmers reaction. He said he was sick of cars hitting his fence and it could be seen as a vendetta. Time for some payback against motorists! It could be argued that he fully intended to damage the car after he lost his temper. In any case, recklessness is present. A poor show by the fuzz in not prosecuting.*

*Of course we only have the accuracy of the Daily Mail story (a paradox perhaps) to rely on. We often find the papers don't tell the full story (naturally) but there is a prima facie case of criminal damage here. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Trespass

Definition of Trespass

Trespass is defined as the immediate and direct unauthorised interference with another individuals goods.

For trespass to be proven there must be intention on the part of the defendant to deliberately interfere with another’s goods.

The definition of trespass includes using, removing, touching or destroying another’s goods. Examples of this are slashing someone’s tires with a knife or running a key alongside an individual’s car scratching the paint work.

Usually police walk away and do not get involved if they view it as being a civil matter and would take it the Mail have got that bit right.

Questions
why would the farmer in his reported actions be liable for criminal charges rather than civil action under trespass tort.

Agree the story may not be reported fully, but police by their actions and advice are not seeing it as criminal

The car driver in his actions would surely find it difficult to prove he was not negligent, his only defence would be if another foce or party caused hi actions, eg another car, strong wind blowing him into fence

In answer to your questions my friend:

1: You don't have to be in a public place to commit a criminal offence so even on the farmers land, the police could arrest the farmer for criminal damage. The police claim that intention to commit damage could not be proved but have missed recklessness and as per what my lecturer said, intention may be present anyway.

2: It is for the farmer to prove on the balance of probabilities that the driver was negligent not for the driver to prove he was not negligent. I think the farmer would have difficulty in proving such negligence given the ice and snow. The only chance would be if the police in attendance could show in their report that the driver was not driving to the conditions and brought it on himself etc. The farmer could use such evidence but highly unlikely because snow and ice sometimes defeats cars that crawl along and despite the drivers best efforts. The farmer has had it on the trespass front. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Just as an add on, the lad in the car could try and sue the farmer in the civil courts but the cost and hassle suggests he won't. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Sounds like the farmer was "engaging in behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" as we say in Scotland.

60 days without the option,

Next! Everyone can spread it - Anyone can catch it. Stay home - the life you save can be your own!