​KembaraXtra- Case Law -Roe v Kingerlee (1986) - OBD
This case provides crucial clarification on what constitutes "damage" within the context of criminal damage offenses.
Facts of the Case:

• Defendant (D): Accused of criminal damage to a police cell wall.
• Action: D smeared mud on the wall.
• Consequence: It cost £7 to clean the wall.

Key Legal Principle (Held):

1. Question of Fact and Degree: Whether an action amounts to criminal damage is not a rigid legal definition, but rather a question of fact and degree to be determined by the jury.
2. Common Sense Application: Juries are expected to apply their common sense when making this determination.
3. Permanence Not Required: It is not necessary for the damage to be permanent for it to qualify as criminal damage.
4. Financial Cost as Evidence: In this specific case, the fact that expense was incurred to put the damage right was sufficient to establish that criminal damage had occurred.

Study Notes & Key Takeaways:

• "Damage" is Broad: The legal interpretation of "damage" extends beyond permanent destruction. Temporary alterations or impairments can also qualify.
• Focus on Consequence: The critical factor is often the consequence of the action, particularly if it necessitates remedial action or incurs a cost to restore the property to its original state or condition.
• Jury's Role is Paramount: The final decision rests with the jury, highlighting the importance of presenting evidence that appeals to common sense and demonstrates a tangible impact on the property.
• Practical Application: If an act requires expenditure (money, time, effort) to rectify, it is highly likely to be considered "damage" for the purpose of criminal law, even if the property itself isn't physically broken or permanently altered.

Example for Understanding:
Imagine someone spray-paints graffiti on a wall. Even if the graffiti can be easily washed off, the cost and effort of cleaning it would likely constitute "damage" under the principles established in Roe v Kingerlee.