Case citation: Samuels v Stubbs (1972) 4 SASR 200
- Court: Supreme Court (South Australia)
- The learned judge: Walters J
- Area of law: Criminal damage
This is an Australian case that deals with the interpretation of “damage” in the context of criminal damage to property.
Facts of the case
In Samuels v Stubbs (1972) 4 SASR 200, the respondent was charged with criminal damage to a police constable’s cap after kicking and jumping on it with both feet during a protest. The cap became crushed and did not return to its original shape. It was left in a “semi-crushed” condition. It was though possible to correct it without considerable effort or cost.
The charge was brought under s 43 of the then Police Offences Act 1953 (SA), which stated that: “Any person who wilfully and without lawful authority destroys or damages any property shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty: Fifty pounds or imprisonment for three months.”
Issue
The key question was whether the damage caused to the police constable’s cap—when it was kicked and jumped on by the respondent—constituted “criminal damage”.
Decision of the Court in Samuels v Stubbs
The Special Magistrate initially dismissed the charge, holding that the cap had not suffered “actual damage.” However, on appeal, Walters J reversed this decision.
His Honour emphasized that the term “damage” does not require proof of permanent harm or that the property is rendered entirely useless. Instead, it suffices if the item suffers “temporary functional derangement,” meaning its ability to serve its normal purpose has been temporarily impaired. In this case, the fact that the cap was crushed and could no longer (at the time) be worn in its normal state amounted to such a derangement.
Hence, the respondent was held responsible for criminal damage.
Waiters J held (at 203) that:
“It is my view, however, the word “damages”, as it is used in s 43, is sufficiently wide in its meaning to embrace injury, mischief or harm done to property, and that in order to constitute “damage” it is unnecessary to establish such definite or actual damage as renders the property useless, or prevents it from serving its normal function – in this case, prevents the cap from being worn. In my opinion, it is sufficient proof of damage if the evidence proves a temporary functional derangement of the particular article of property.”
References:
- https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/08-Sydney/s141-2018/Grajewski_App.pdf
- https://jade.io/citation/136611
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE CASES: