A (A Juvenile) v R [1978] Crim LR 689
Criminal damage – compensation – Criminal Damage Act 1971
Facts
A was seen to have spat on a police officer’s rain jacket, during the course of being escorted from one location to another. The rain coat was used as evidence at the hearing and it had a faint mark on it where the spit had supposedly landed. The prosecution’s case relied on the fact that the coat needed dry cleaning and that it had been rendered imperfect as a result of this.
Issue
The issue in this case was whether the defendant spitting on the jacket in these circumstances could be considered as criminal damage within the meaning of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. It was important to understand in this case whether the rain coat had been rendered imperfect or inoperative in line with the wording in the statute.
Held
The appeal against A’s conviction for criminal damage was allowed as it was found that there was no case to answer in this instance. There had been no attempt made by the officer to clean the rain jacket and if there had been, it could have been wiped with a damp cloth, which would have more than likely removed the mark with no stain remaining and no permanent damage. It was held that this might have been different had the material been more delicate, such as a wedding dress, or the material had stained and it required dry cleaning. Ultimately, it was such minor damage that it was not enough to trigger a penalty under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the decision in A (A Juvenile) v R [1978] Crim LR 689. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 remains in force and unchanged in the relevant respects. The principle that damage must be more than wholly trivial or transient to constitute criminal damage under the 1971 Act continues to represent good law and is regularly cited in criminal law teaching materials. The courts have since elaborated on the meaning of ‘damage’ in cases such as Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48 and Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330, which confirmed that temporary damage and damage requiring expenditure to remedy can suffice, further contextualising the narrow outcome in this case. Nothing in subsequent legislation or caselaw has undermined the correctness of the decision as described.
