• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Recklessness & Intention - Critically assess the meaning of the term 'reckless' in criminal law

Extracts from this document...


J.Suliman Recklessness & Intention 1. Critically assess the meaning of the term 'reckless' in criminal law. Recklessness is the taking of an unjustifiable risk. There are two levels of recklessness. First, 'subjective' recklessness; this is where the defendant realises that a risk may arise if a certain action is taken, and in spite of this he takes that action and ignores the consequences involved. Second, 'objective' recklessness arises when it is obvious to all that a reasonable prudent person would have realised that there was a risk, so the fact that the defendant may not have even considered whether there were any risks is irrelevant (as a normal person would have in that situation). The idea of subjective recklessness ties in more readily with the policy of punishing someone for something she is morally responsible for, as it takes into consideration the state of mind of the defendant. The concept of objective recklessness, on the other hand, ignores the defendant's mental state, and this could lead to an injustice as some people who are mentally sub-normal (but not insane) ...read more.


However, the defendant would not be convicted if he had wrongly inferred that there were no risks which would have probably also been the conclusion of a reasonable person. This is named the 'Lacuna' of the Caldwell test. Caldwell recklessness now mainly applies to criminal damage, partly due to the injustice that arises in some cases e.g. Elliot V C (1983), where a normal prudent person cannot be compared to a person with completely different characteristics who may not realise the consequences of her actions. A possible alternative method of testing recklessness which would overcome the criticism of unfairness in the current objective Caldwell method, would be to compare defendants to other people with similar characteristics e.g. age, sex and mental ability as opposed to reasonable prudent men. 2. What problems have the courts found in attempting to define intention and how satisfactorily have they been resolved? Intention is the highest level of mens rea. It is also referred to as specific intention. ...read more.


A child died in the fire. The Court of Appeal suggested that juries ask themselves two questions. One, how probable was the consequence, which resulted from the defendant's voluntary act? And two, did the defendant foresee the consequence? The jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they feel sure that the consequence was a virtual certainty as a result as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case. Finally, the last case that put an end to all this confusion was Woollin (1998). The defendant threw his three-month-old baby towards the pram, which was against the wall some three feet away. The baby suffered head injuries and died. The Lords approved of the direction in Nedrick, provided the word 'infer' was changed to 'find'. However, the House of Lords disapproved of the use of the two questions in Nedrick. It seems that the courts have finally settles on a test for oblique intention, and therefore, is perceived to have been successful in finally finding a definition for this indirect intention. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    In sports cases this would be similar to consent for example if a tackle ended in injury. Finally the defence of necessity can be used and this defence is essentially that the defendant's action was necessary to prevent greater damage to the defendant or third party.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    "The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and ...

    4 star(s)

    intent may still remain unclear after the recent House of Lords decision in Woollin'5 The decision reached in Nedrick and Woollin allows for those who should be regarded as having the culpability of murder to only be convicted of manslaughter.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    3 star(s)

    For the distinction between murder and manslaughter, then, the law uses intention as its main method; thus the crime and therefore the sentence can differ considerably depending on the presence or absence of intention. There has been much controversy as to the proper meaning of intention in English criminal law.

  2. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    damages to the claimant, primarily in respect of the employer for the torts of the employee. Obviously it would be in the claimant's best interest if they could obtain damages from a large employer for the actions of an individual employee.

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    will not think he has failed if the person survives.[3] Thus the defendant's true 'purpose' in acting may be more easily discovered. In Steane [1947], the defendant had been compelled, through concern for the sake of his family, to make broadcasts for the enemy during the Second World War, and


    It doe s not apply where the claimant only knew of the existence rather than understanding it (Stewart v Lawson) nor does it apply where the claimant is forced to accept the risk (Smith v Baker (1891). It commonly applies in situation if physical harm is likely.

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    It looked in 1980 if the word 'reckless' would be interpreted subjectively - did the defendant advert to the risk and carries on regardless AND was the risk an unreasonable one in all the circumstances? If we think back to Hart's formulation, this is more generous to the defendant -

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    Stepney Borough Council (1951). Professional people (those people with a higher level of skill than the average man) must conduct themselves with the skill expected of that profession, Carmarthenshire C.C. v. Lewis (1955). Causation For a defendant to be held liable, the claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's breach of duty caused the loss.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work