it not for canada law. its for criminal law in uk.
1. Daisy and Joe are worried about global warming and are part of a campaigning group called ‘Climate Heroes’. They are concerned about the Government’s decision to allow the company Eoff to build a coal fired power station in the town where they live – Queensouth. They believe that the station will emit high levels of carbon monoxide and not only impact upon the quality of the air in the town but also lead to falling house values and black soot being deposited on properties in the area. At a meeting about the project, Daisy pours a pint of milk over Tom, a manager working for Eoff. He has to leave the meeting because his suit is wet. Joe decides that he has to stop the project going ahead and so one night he cuts the fence around the building site with some wire cutters, climbs the main chimney and writes ‘Stop Global Warming’ in 50cm letters using white gloss paint. Daisy becomes very angry, as the Government has ignored the concerns of the protest group. She discovers the address of Bert, the Junior Minister responsible for the project. She pushes a note through his door saying ‘Stop polluting Queensouth’ and then throws a lighted rag through an open window. Bert’s wife, who smells burning, goes into the dining room and extinguishes the fire quickly. The rag burns a hole in the carpet. Discuss the potential criminal liability of Daisy and Joe under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 AND comment on whether the extent of criminal liability is appropriate in these cases.
Do you think I would have this question answered by tonight?
Can I cancel this question please.