• 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

    Automatism is generally considered to be a state in which a person has no ...

    5 star(s)

    the brain, rather than an inherent mental defect to be non-insane automatism. In Quick (1973) the Judge stated, "A malfunctioning of the mind of transitory effect caused by the application to the body of some external factor such as violence, drugs, including anaesthetics, alcohol and hypnotic influences cannot fairly be said to be due to disease."

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Judicial precedent.

    3 star(s)

    The appeal court will then substitute its own decision. Thus, the appeal court disagrees with the point of law that decided the matter in the lower court and gives the decision in favour of a different party. (Disapproving; in a later case, without overruling the earlier case, a higher court gives its opinion that the earlier case was wrongly decided.

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

    users of the road whether drivers or pedestrians will behave with reasonable care. One cannot excuse oneself by relying on another to do an act unless that reliance were reasonable. Manchester Corporation v Markland17 illustrates this. The appellants were the statutory authority for the supply of water.

  2. Was Saxon justice harsh and superstitious?

    But if the wound was not healing cleanly God was saying she was guilty. Trial by hot water was usually taken my men. The accused put his hand into boiling water to pick up an object and lift it out.

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

    - smith was a soldier at camp, got into a fight and victim is stabbed. Victim seen to by medical auditory (not qualified) and dropped several times, also diagnosed as drunk only. Later on seen by doctor, but too late and he dies.

  2. What is an indictable offence and how is it brought to trial?

    Proceedings against member states may be brought by the commission, or by other member states, and involve alleged breaches of community law by the country in question. Proceedings against EU institutions may be brought by member states, other EU institutions and in certain circumstances, by individual citizens or organisations.

  1. The Age Of Criminal Responsibility

    Diane Taylor asks a simple question to each person who then gives their views and thoughts. I do not feel there is any bias here. Diane Taylor has asked each person a simple question and each person has replied, detailing their answer and a justification for it.

  2. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    After a negotiable instrument is discharged the rights against all the parties thereto comes to an end, and no party, even a holder in due course, can claim the amount of the instrument from any party thereto. Discharge of the party primarily and ultimately liable on the instrument results in the discharge of the instrument itself.

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