Andree vs Coorey – clr volume 2 page 203

In the case between Hugh Andree (complainant/lessee) and the accused, concerning criminal trespass and mischief, the legal issue centered on the adequacy of charges under the Penal Code—specifically, the requirement to state the intended offence in criminal trespass charges and the definition of mischief in the context of property interference. It was held that a charge of criminal trespass must clearly specify the intended offence under the relevant statutes, and that merely plucking fruits does not amount to mischief, as the act does not constitute destruction or diminish the value or utility of the property. The findings established the necessity for clarity and legal sufficiency in framing criminal charges and reaffirmed that certain acts, absent actual injury or loss, do not meet the