Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735
- Divisional Court of QBD
This case of 1986 concerns itself with how “damage” should be interpreted in criminal law.
Facts of the case (Roe v Kingerlee)
The defendant was charged with criminal damage for smearing mud on the wall of a police cell. The mud did not cause permanent harm, but it cost £7 to clean it off. Initially, the magistrates dismissed the charge, concluding that D’s actions did not amount to criminal damage.
Issue
The key issue in this case was whether the act of smearing mud on a wall, which required cleaning but did not cause permanent harm, could be considered criminal damage.
Judgment in Roe v Kingerlee
The Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division overturned the earlier decision, stating that whether an act constitutes criminal damage is a “matter of fact and degree”, and it is for the justices to decide, using their common sense. Importantly, the court clarified that damage does not need to be permanent to qualify as criminal damage; the fact that expense was incurred to restore the property was sufficient.
Significance
This case sets a precedent that criminal damage does not have to involve significant or permanent harm. Even minor, temporary acts of damage—if they would require time, effort, or money to fix—can be considered criminal damage.
References:
- http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/16376/1/126.pdf
- https://sjrlawblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/criminal-damage.pdf
- https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/cases/roe-v-kingerlee/
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CRIMINAL LAW: