Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735
Criminal damage – Criminal Damage Act 1971
Facts
Kingerlee was charged with criminal damage having placed mud graffiti on the wall of a police cell. The graffiti cost £7 to clean away. Kingerlee was subsequently charged with criminal damage. In the first instance, it was held that the facts of the case did not amount to criminal damage and the case was therefore dismissed. This was appealed by the prosecutor.
Issues
An important issue in this case was whether the graffiti and specifically, the extent of the graffiti, bearing in mind it could eradicated, could amount to criminal damage within the definition given in the Criminal Damage Act 1971. It was also important for judges to define the extent to which judges had to weigh damages in which cases.
Decision/Outcome
The level of action deemed to constitute criminal damage was a matter of fact and degree for the justices to decide by applying their common sense. Having applied the case of Cox v Riley [1986] Crim LR 460 it was also held that the damage need not be permanent to be considered as criminal damage. In the current case, the graffiti on the walls was considered enough to amount to criminal damage and therefore the judges in the first instance had erred in deciding this was not the case. However, when considering the damage caused, it was satisfactory to make no order on the appeal. This case demonstrates that graffiti is capable of being considered as damage in line with the Criminal Damage Act 1971, even though it can be washed away or painted over.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735 and correctly states the legal principles it established. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 remains in force and unamended in the respects relevant to this case. The principle that damage need not be permanent to constitute criminal damage under the 1971 Act, and that whether damage has occurred is a question of fact and degree, continues to represent good law. The reference to Cox v Riley [1986] Crim LR 460 is accurate; both cases are regularly cited together in this context and remain authoritative. Subsequent cases such as Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330 further confirmed these principles. The article is broadly accurate and up to date for the purposes for which it is written.
