1Under s 197(4) of the Crimes Act 1958, the decision in Eade v The Queen; Vanstone v The Queen requires proof that the offender had the requisite state of mind in relation to the particular property the subject of the charge, but does not require proof that the offender intended to damage that property 'to substantially the extent that it was, in fact, damaged or destroyed'; the case concerns the identity of the property intended to be damaged, not the degree of damage intended.
2For the offence of intentionally damaging property under s 197(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, 'damage' need not be permanent, significant or irremediable; it is sufficient that the offender occasioned some alteration to the physical integrity of the property, even if only temporarily.
3A question trail provided to the jury is a supplementary guide to be considered in conjunction with the judge's oral directions, not in isolation; where the question trail adopts the statutory language and the oral directions elaborate on its application, no inconsistency arises merely because the question trail does not reproduce every nuance of the oral directions.
