Leo s/o Pigangoma v. R., Crim. App. 671-M-66; 17/4/67; Platt J.
Accused was convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm (P.C. s. 241), common assault (P.C. s. 240) and malicious damage to property (P.C. s. 326(1)). In the course of the assault, accused tore complainant’s shirt and vest and broke his spectacles.
Held: Where an assault takes place which causes damage to property worn by or in the possession of the complainant, such damage is to be considered merely incidental to the assault, rather than a separate offence, unless there is evidence of willful damage to property as such. There was no such evidence in this case. The conviction for malicious property damage was quashed.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.