FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 4,791 times | Saved to 308 briefcases
R v G and Another, [2003] UKHL 50

Facts:

Appellants 11 and 12 were camping. They were lighting newspaper on fire and throwing it in bin by building. Building caught on fire. Boys thought no risk of fire spreading

Issue(s):

Is recklessness a subjective standard or an objective standard? Does the holding Caldwell still apply?

Ratio:

Recklessness is a purely subjective standard

Analysis:

R v Caldwell – the term reckless in the Criminal Damage Act permits a finding of liability where the accused recognized that he or she had created an obvious risk to property and proceeded in the face of that risk OR where the accused gave no thought to the possibility that he or she had created such a risk.

Objective standards are unduly harsh on people who have reduced capacity

Holding:

Conviction overturned – Caldwell overturned


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.