The Offence of Destroying or Damaging Property, Previously Known as ‘Malicious Damage’

New South Wales police were called out to Campbell Parade at Bondi Beach, which is located on Gadigal land, following several reports regarding property damage on 29 November 2025. Officers attached to the Eastern Suburbs Police Area Command arrived at the scene to find that the Bondi Beach lifeguard tower, along with several, bins, bollards and signs had been graffitied.

During the subsequent investigation of the incident Eastern Suburbs detectives determined that two unknown men had allegedly carried out these crimes between 12.40 am and 2 am on the Saturday morning.

With the assistance of officers from Operation Odin, these detectives executed a search warrant at around 8 am last Friday, 17 April 2026, at a residence on Waverley’s Arden Street, and officers arrested a 32-year-old man. The search of the unidentified man’s home further turned up marker pens and a small amount of the illicit drug ketamine.

Operation Odin consists of Operational Support Group (OSG) officers attached to the NSW Police Force Central Metropolitan Region.

The man was taken to the Surry Hills police station and charged with 35 criminal offences that related to property, graffiti and drugs.

The Waverley man has been charged with 21 counts of intentionally marking a premises or property, contrary to subsection 4(2) of the Graffiti Control Act 2008 (NSW). The offence carries up to 12 months imprisonment and/or a $2,200 fine. 

This is an aggravated, or more serious, form of the subsection 4(1) of the Graffiti Control Act marking of a premises or property crime, as the Bondi incident allegedly involved the use of a graffiti implement, or more specifically a marker pen.

As for the small amount of ketamine located, the offender has been charged with drug possession, contrary to section 10 of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). A person is charged with possession when the quantity of an illicit substance is of an amount legislated to be for personal use. The maximum penalties for this offence are up to 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $2,200.

The 32-year-old was then refused bail and was scheduled to make a bail application in the Local Court the following day. And inquiries seeking to locate the second alleged vandal were ongoing.

The offence of intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property

The man has also been charged with 13 counts of the offence of intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property, which is an offence contained under section 195 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). 

This offence is often referred to as ‘malicious damage’, but this is a misnomer. The offence of malicious damage was repealed by the Crimes Amendment Act 2007 and the new offence came into effect on 16 February 2008.

The basic form of intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property is contained in subsection 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence carries up to 5 years imprisonment. 

To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused damaged or destroyed property, which belonged to someone else, and they either intentionally set out to do this, or the accused was reckless to the fact.

Under New South Wales law, an offence committed in a reckless manner means the person was aware that their action or omission might break the law, but they continued on regardless. A crime committed recklessly is generally considered less serious by the courts for the purposes of sentencing, meaning a person who pleads guilty or is found guilty is likely to be given a more lenient penalty than if the act been intentional.

There is also a more serious version of the subsection 195(1)(a) basic form of the offence, which is contained under subsection 195(1)(b), and it involves the destruction or damage of property having been perpetrated with the use of “fire or explosives”.

The fact that the 32-year-old Waverley man has been charged with 13 counts of intentionally or recklessly damaging or destroying property in addition to the graffiti offences, suggests that the property damage crimes referred to are acts that involve breakage or some form of permanent damage, which went beyond the simple marking of property with graffiti.

The 32-year-old had used a permanent marker, which couldn’t be simply wiped away, but this is not considered intentional or reckless damage, as it is rather behaviour that is captured under the aggravated graffiti offence the man is also facing multiple counts of.

Another aggravated form of damage involves the damaging or destruction of a war memorial, under subsection 195(1AA) of the Crimes Act, which carries up to 7 years prison time.

As the 32-year-old is alleged to have committed his property damage crimes with an accomplice, or in the company of at least one other person, the Waverley man is likely to face 13 counts of the offence of intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property in company, which is contrary to subsection 195(1A)(a) of the Crimes Act, and it carries up to 6 years gaol time.

If an accused is charged over damage caused by fire or explosives whilst in company, this is contrary to subsection 195(1A)(b) of the Crimes Act, and it carries up to 11 years inside.

The final forms of the offence of damage involve the offending occurring during a public disorder. The basic form of this crime sits under subsection 195(2)(a) of the Crimes Act, and carries up to 7 years, but when destroying property using fire or explosives during a public disorder, an individual faces up to 12 years imprisonment, under subsection 195(2)(b) of the Crimes Act.

Defences available to intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property

There are a number of defences open to all the various forms of the offence of destroying or damaging property crimes under section 195 of the Crimes Act.

One of these defences is self-defence, which is contained in 418 of the Crimes Act and may be established where the accused was defending themselves or another from harm, or preventing the unlawful attempt to deprive their own liberty or another’s, along with preventing criminal trespass or property “being taken, destroyed, damaged or interfered” with.

There must be evidence capable of supporting a claim of self-defence, and once the defence has been put, the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or a verdict of acquittal must be entered.

However, self-defence cannot be argued in circumstances where the defendant used enough force to cause the death of other, in circumstances where they were attempting to protect property or prevent criminal trespass.

Duress is another defence open to the charge. This defence involves the accused claiming that they perpetrated a crime, in this case, the 32-year-old’s alleged acts of destroying or damaging property, in order to avoid a threat made against him or a loved one. For this to hold, it must be shown that the threat was made and was serious enough to warrant the lawbreaking.

Another defence that the Waverley man could raise against his counts of criminal damage is that of necessity, which involves putting to the court that the accused perpetrated their alleged wrongdoing because it was necessary to avoid a much greater harm. A simple example of this would be a driver pulled over for speeding, who was attempting to get a seriously injured person to hospital.

Police bringing charges in trivial situations

An interesting and ongoing case relating to criminal damage and graffiti charges that has been playing out over the last couple of years in New South Wales, involves local social justice activist Stephen Langford, who has repeatedly been sticking A4 pieces of paper with words on them to a prominent statute located on Gadigal land in Sydney’s Hyde Park.

The statute is that of NSW governor Lachlan Macquarie, who held office from 1810 to 1821. Langford has been attaching the paper to the monument, using water-soluble glue or at other times, Blue Tack.

The message on the paper outlines that in 1816 Macquarie issued a decree for British subjects to go out and capture local Aboriginal peoples as prisoners-of-war, but if they resisted, they should be shot dead and their bodies hung from trees to deter other First Peoples. This order directly led to the 1816 Appin massacre.

Langford then appeared before the Sydney Central District Court in May 2025, facing multiple charges of criminal damage due to his repeatedly having stuck paper with printed words to the monument. But when the case came to trial NSW District Court Judge Christine Mendes dropped the charges against the activist as she found his actions didn’t breach the threshold of criminal damage.

The habitual poster sticker then appeared again in court over the same act last month, April 2026, and he was convicted this time. However, he was not found guilty in respect of the damage charge.

Rather, Langford last month faced one count of posting bills or intentionally affixing a placard or paper on a premises so that it is within view of a public place without consent, contrary to section 6 of the Graffiti Control Act. And while his crime carries a fine of up to $440, Langford was fined $220.

Image of Bondi Beach lifeguard tower, December 2025 by DaHuzyBra licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Image of Lachlan Macquarie monument by Maksym Kozlenko licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.