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

“The case of Caldwell is unduly harsh in its effects, but has increasingly become irrelevant to the law on recklessness”. How far do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer.

Extracts from this document...


"The case of Caldwell is unduly harsh in its effects, but has increasingly become irrelevant to the law on recklessness" How far do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer. The case of Caldwell has had a major impact on the law on recklessness. Before Caldwell, it was generally agreed by case law and by academic opinion that the test for recklessness was subjective: i.e. the defendant must himself have realised the risk. It was not an objective test based on the standards of the reasonable man. Any liability based on those objective terms was classed as liability for negligence. This was known as Subjective recklessness, or Cunningham recklessness. For a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness he must have consciously undertaken an unjust risk. He must realize that there is a risk involved but if he continues to carry on with his conduct, then he is reckless. In Cunningham (1957), the defendant tore a gas meter off the wall of an unoccupied house in order the steal the money. The gas was left gushing out and it seeped into the neighbouring house where it was breathed in by the victim who was nearly gassed. The defendant was charged under s.23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which involves maliciously administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life. ...read more.


In essence, Diplock's rationale was founded firstly on the premise that there is no difference in moral culpability between the defendant who adverts to a risk and the one that does not. Secondly he suggested that it was not a practicable distinction for use in a jury trial. The answer to the first seems to be that moral philosophy clearly draws a distinction between the deliberate risk-taker and the person who fails to appreciate that there is any risk. There must be a distinction between those capable of observing certain standards and those who did not possess that capacity. If you do not differentiate, then the schizoid tramp or the inadequate, backward child is judged by the same standards as the prudent individual. This point is illustrated in Elliott v. C (1983) where the accused was a 14-yr old girl in a remedial class at school. She had gone out with an older girl, hoping to spend the night at her house. Unable to do so, she stayed out all night. At about 5 am she poured white spirit on the floor of a garden shed, lit it and it flared up out of control. The shed was destroyed. The magistrates, considering her age, understanding, lack of experience and exhaustion, considered that the thought of risk had not entered her head. ...read more.


test of what constitutes an obvious and serious risk might be 'in the circumstances, should the defendant (given such characteristics as age, or any mental incapability) have realized there was a risk? This would ensure that blameworthy thoughtlessness would insure liability, but would exclude the unfairness of cases like Elliott. Caldwell recklessness is often criticised, as we can see from the title of this essay. The critics believe that the test does not make a distinction between the person who knowingly takes a risk and the person who gives no thought to whether there is a risk or not. They believe that since the case of Caldwell there is now a substantial overlap between recklessness and gross negligence. Before Caldwell, there was an obvious difference: recklessness meant knowingly taking a risk; negligence traditionally meant unknowingly taking a risk of which you should have been aware. Caldwell recklessness clearly comes very close to negligence. The adoption of Caldwell recklessness means that a mens rea generally considered less morally blameworthy than Cunningham recklessness is being applied to some serious offences. As the law currently stands concern has been expressed that the higher Cunningham standard is applied to rape and the lower Caldwell standard is applied to criminal damage. This means property is better protected than people are. Caldwell's relevance on the law of recklessness is diminishing, as the test has been considerably restricted in recent years. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law 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 GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Evidence - R v Kearley

    5 star(s)

    It is arguable that the approach of Rein30 would solve these issues. He argues that 'all such evidence should be admissible (if relevant) but to leave the weight of if the evidence in each case to be assessed by the jury in light of the particular background circumstances'.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Judicial precedent.

    3 star(s)

    ( The law is able to grow as society changes so case law is forged along the anvil of reality - new legal principals can be developed to deal with new situations. 14. Give six disadvantages of case law. (Possible rigidity (possible hair splitting - judges finding artificial points of difference to avoid following an unpopular decision.

  1. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    However, the jury must not be present at the time of the plea. If the defendant can prove that there is some evidence of the defence, then the judge will accept it. The juries are then told to return and are informed about the submission.

  2. Study the concept of Reasonable man and reasonability in tort law.

    difficult to decide when ether has been an intervening act of a third party, whether the defendants act has caused the damage suffered by the plaintiff. It is important to note that he issue of causation becomes material only afeter the failure of the defendant to take due care has been proved.

  1. Was Saxon justice harsh and superstitious?

    A tithing was a group of ten people. All males over the age of twelve had to belong to a tithing. This meant that they were responsible for each other's behaviour. If a member of the tithing broke the law, the others had to bring him to court or pay the compensation fine to the victim.

  2. "The function of the judiciary within the constitution of the United Kingdom is to ...

    It might be argued that the exercise of this influence requires the courts to develop some coherent body of principles by which they will be guided. The classical jurisprudential position is that "the criminal courts are expected to prefer the value of personal freedom to others, when there is any

  1. Critically evaluate the changes which have been made since 1990 to the definition of ...

    (2) Article 7(2) of the Convention provided ample justification for a husband's trial for the rape if his wife, according to the general principles recognised by civilised nations. The prosecution for rape did not infringe his rights under the Convention. The ECHR plainly stated that the 'abandonment of the unacceptable idea of a

  2. Justices of the Peace - Magistrates Courts

    has to follow the law. Writing in the Law Quarterly Review in 1991, Lord Devlin gave other examples of perverse verdicts by juries exercising their consciences. Some are old and well-known: in the days when theft of goods worth five shillings was a hanging offence, a jury found a pickpocket guilty of stealing a gold sovereign, value 4s 11d.

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