The common law offence was largely concerned with the protection of dwellings and the food supply, and few sanctions were imposed for damaging personal property.

As time passed, specific laws were introduced to deal with particular situations as they were judged to require intervention, most particularly alongside the rise of mechanisation and urbanisation during the Industrial Revolution.

The common law generally treated damage to another's chattels as a civil matter leading only to a right to damages in trespass or nuisance; in the 18th century, Blackstone stated: The rights of personal property in possession are liable to two species of injuries: the amotion [carrying away] or deprivation of that possession; and the abuse or damage of the chattels, while the possession continues in the legal owner.Blackstone labelled these as "Private Wrongs" in his commentaries, emphasising that property rights were enforced inter partes, and that the state was not necessarily one of the involved parties.

[1] In fact, the criminal law only intervened in the case of arson, defining it as "the malicious and wilful burning of the house or outhouses of another man".

[3] Whereas the common law protected habitation and sources of wealth and food in a largely agricultural society, the Industrial Revolution, especially the Luddism resulting from workers' perceived threats to their livelihood, required new legislation to match the circumstances.

Given that Hill was "forced to admit that she did not expect a nuclear bomb to fall today or tomorrow",[13] the Court concluded that this threat to property was too remote and thus the defence had not been made out, however honest the belief had been.

The case of Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)[14] held that even a drunken belief will support the defence even though this allows drunkenness to negate basic intent; and Lloyd v DPP (1992)[15] ruled that a motorist who damages a wheel clamp to free his car, having parked on another's property knowing of the risk of being clamped, does not have a lawful excuse under the Act even if he makes a mistake of law.

– as the Lord Chief Justice put it, "[i]t is not an offence for a man to set light to his own ... property" – and therefore Denton, knowing this, had a lawful excuse independent of section 5.

In A (a juvenile) v R (1978),[17] the defendant spat on a police officer's raincoat, which was easily wiped clean; it was held that this did not amount to damage within the 1971 Act.

In Morphitis v Salmon (1989),[18] a scratch to a scaffolding pole could not be proven to have been done by the defendant, and the court doubted whether it could amount to damage anyway as it did not impair its value or usefulness.

[19]A different conclusion was reached in Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary (1986),[20] where graffiti, although eventually removable by action of rainfall, was actually washed away by the local authority, incurring expense, and was held to be criminal damage.

However a person setting fire to his own house which is subject to a mortgage can be charged because the mortgagee will have a proprietary right or interest in the property.

[32] In Booth v. Crown Prosecution Service (2006)[33] a divisional court upheld the defendant pedestrian's conviction on a charge that, by rashly dashing into the road, he recklessly damaged the vehicle that hit him because "the appellant was aware of the risk and closed his mind to it".

3 of 1992 (1994),[36] on a charge of attempted aggravated arson, it was held to be sufficient for the prosecution to establish a specific intent to cause damage by fire and that the defendant was reckless as to whether life would thereby be endangered.

Although the court assumed that his belief was honest, it ruled that his intention was to draw attention to faulty fire defences rather than to defend the property itself.

[39] Non-aggravated offences involving damage valued at less than £5,000 are triable only summarily by magistrates and the maximum sentence is three months' imprisonment and a fine of £2,500.

If the value of the property damaged exceeds £5,000, the defendant is entitled to claim trial on indictment by a jury, but if tried summarily, may be sentenced to up to six months in jail and a £5,000 fine.

3. c. 24) which created the capital offences commonly known collectively as "arson in royal dockyards"; these had been overlooked when the death penalty for murder was abolished in 1965.