Charges: Destroy or damage property x 1.
Appeal type: Appeal against conviction.
Facts: In the course of an argument with the complainant, his wife, the appellant damaged a laptop and mobile phone (). The appellant’s case was that he was the sole owner of the items, and thus could not be convicted of the offence (). The appellant had purchased the items and had given them to his wife and did not say they were gifts (). The complainant had day to day use of both items ().
Issues: Whether the items were the property of the appellant or another person.
Decision and reasoning: In reliance on the law of trusts, Scotting J inferred from the actions of the parties that the items were intended to be gifts (-). The presumption of advancement could not be rebutted. The Magistrate’s decision that the items belonged to both the appellant and complainant was affirmed (). Therefore, the appellant’s conviction for property damage is upheld.