The decision in Samuels v Stubbs was delivered by the Supreme Court of South Australia in 1972. The case dealt with a narrow but important legal question: whether a temporary alteration to property, which can be easily repaired, can still amount to damage in law.
The court’s reasoning moved away from a rigid understanding of damage as permanent physical harm and instead adopted a more practical and contextual approach. This case has since been relied upon to explain how “damage” should be interpreted where the property remains largely intact but has been interfered with deliberately.
Facts of Samuels v Stubbs
In Samuels v Stubbs, the defendant deliberately jumped on a police officer’s hat. As a result of this act, the hat became dented. The dent affected the shape and condition of the hat, although it was accepted that the dent could be removed without considerable effort or expense. The hat was not torn, destroyed, or rendered permanently unusable.
The defendant was charged with criminal damage. His defence was based on the argument that his actions did not amount to “damage” in law. He contended that because the dent was temporary and could be easily fixed, the hat had not truly been damaged. There was no dispute that the act was intentional; the dispute was solely about whether the legal requirement of damage had been satisfied.
The court therefore had to assess whether a temporary physical alteration to property, which did not permanently impair it, could still fall within the legal meaning of damage.
Issues
The central issue before the court in Samuels v Stubbs was whether denting the police officer’s hat amounted to criminal damage. This raised a broader legal question about the meaning of damage in property law.
More specifically, the court had to consider whether damage requires permanent physical harm to property, or whether a temporary alteration that affects the condition or function of the property is sufficient. The issue also involved determining what criteria should be used to decide whether an act amounts to damage, particularly where the property can be restored easily.
Samuels v Stubbs Judgement
The Supreme Court held that the defendant had damaged the hat. In Samuels v Stubbs, the court concluded that denting the hat amounted to damage because it caused what was described as a “temporary functional derangement” of the property.
The court rejected the argument that damage must be permanent or costly to repair. It found that the fact that the dent could be removed without much effort or expense did not prevent the act from constituting damage. The temporary impairment of the hat’s condition and appearance was sufficient.
By focusing on the effect of the defendant’s actions rather than the ease of repair, the court confirmed that damage can exist even where the property is not permanently harmed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Samuels v Stubbs establishes that damage in property law does not require permanent physical harm. The deliberate denting of the police officer’s hat was sufficient to constitute damage because it caused a temporary functional derangement and interfered with the condition of the property.
The case confirms that damage includes injury, mischief, or harm and must be assessed in light of the circumstances, the nature of the property, and the effect of the act.
The decision provides clear guidance that temporary or easily repairable alterations can still amount to damage if they interfere with property in a meaningful way. As a result, Samuels v Stubbs remains an important authority for understanding how courts interpret damage in cases involving intentional but non-permanent interference with property.