A (A Juvenile) v R [1978] Crim LR 689

A (A Juvenile) v R [1978] Crim LR 689

Criminal damage – meaning of damage – 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 officer tried to remove the spittle with a paper tissue. 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 argument 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 the court’s interpretation of the ordinary word “damage”.

Held

The Kent Crown Court allowed the appeal against A’s conviction for criminal damage and quashed the conviction. Apart from using a tissue, there had been no attempt to clean the rain jacket with soap and water. It was a service raincoat designed to withstand the elements, and there was no likelihood that a trace or mark requiring further cleaning would remain if it were wiped with a damp cloth. 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. The raincoat had not been rendered imperfect or inoperative by A’s conduct. If it was unavailable for use, that was because it was being kept as an exhibit. The prosecution had therefore not proved damage within the meaning of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Sources: A (A Juvenile) discussed in Grajewski v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2019] HCA 8, paragraph 36; original report passage reproduced in the appellant’s submissions, paragraph 40.