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

Consider the meanings of 'recklessness' in criminal law which give rise to this criticism indicating to what extent you agree with it.

Extracts from this document...


RECKLESSNESS ESSAY "The Caldwell test fails to make a distinction which should be made between the person who knowingly takes a risk and the person who gives no thought to whether there is a risk or not" -SMITH AND HOGAN 1992 Consider the meanings of 'recklessness' in criminal law which give rise to this criticism indicating to what extent you agree with it. Proof of recklessness in law is sufficient to establish the mens rea for most criminal offences. There are two types of recklessness: subjective and objective recklessness. Recklessness is the taking of, and being aware of, an unjustifiable risk - that is one which is in no way beneficial to society and it is highly unlikely that a reasonable person would have taken that risk. However, the word had produced uncertainty because there is no statutory definition and judges have produced two meanings of recklessness for different crimes. It is often difficult for the prosecution to prove that D intended to commit the crime in question and for many offences, it is therefore not necessary to show a high degree of blameworthiness; it is sufficient to prove that D has been reckless as to whether the crime has been committed. The law has developed in such a way that there are now different tests for recklessness. One is known as the 'subjective' test and focuses on the question of whether D foresaw the risks of his conduct and the other test is 'objective' and considers the ordinary and prudent individual's foresight of risk. ...read more.


Two years later, Objective recklessness was derived in a 3 to 2 decision in the House of Lords, where Lord Diplock said that a person is reckless if he does an act which in fact creates an obvious risk and when he does the act he has either not given any thought to the possibility of risk, or that, realising the risk, he had gone on to take it. This was made clear in the case of CALDWELL (1981), where D got drunk one night and started a fire in V's hotel. It was dealt with but D was charged with arson under the Criminal Damage Act (1971). On the same day in the case of LAWRENCE (1981) the House of Lords again defined recklessness in the same way (under a different Act). In this case D had killed a pedestrian whilst riding at high speed on a motorcycle. Lord Diplock again reiterated his comments, but raised the point of the involvement of an ordinary prudent individual in recklessness. However, his comments seemed to require that the risk be obvious whether D foresees it or not. This cannot be the case: D who actually foresees a risk and takes it is reckless, it is irrelevant whether or not it was obvious. Indeed the definition refers to D having recognised there was some risk. The rationale for the redefinition of recklessness in CALDWELL was that a self-induced inability to appreciate risks should be no defence to crimes requiring recklessness. ...read more.


Furthermore, in Merrick (1996) it was held that where D creates a risk in the belief that subsequent precautions will immediately eliminate it, he does not fall within the lacuna since he recognises the risk and carries on regardless. The two tests are therefore available and it seems that the Cunningham test survives in rape cases while the Caldwell test is to be found in statutory crimes such as criminal damage and motor manslaughter. Glanville Williams and John Smith have condemned the decision and arguments of Diplock in CALDWELL and LAWRENCE as "profoundly regrettable". It is clear that Diplock's original intentions of finding those who are intoxicated reckless, but his defined objective recklessness leaves a lot open to interpretation. Subjective recklessness currently applies to offences against the person and secondary participation whilst objective recklessness applies largely to criminal damage. The Law Commission have a Criminal Law Bill (1993) and a Government Offences Against the Person Bill (1998) which clearly confirm subjective recklessness and they are proposed to be enacted and covering criminal damage. The existence of this Lacuna in the law may well allow some who are guilty to escape liability, but at the same time, it will prevent those who are not guilty from facing unjust liability. This is of course the golden thread of the English legal system as created in WOOLMINGTON, by which if ten guilty are freed for one innocent also being freed, then the sacrifice is one worth making. Aymen Mahmoud JA4 Law/JTH ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Criminal 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 University Degree Criminal law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Critically consider all arguments concerning spousal compellability and conclude whether or not it ...

    4 star(s)

    R v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages27 involved a marriage before the trial. The CPS asked the Registrar General to delay the marriage, the Registrar General refused and so the CPS sort judicial review for refusing to delay.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Viscount Sankey's Golden Thread Speech

    3 star(s)

    be beyond reasonable doubt to convict and the burden of proof lies with the defendant not the prosecution to provide this. Viscount Sankey L.C. within the appeal commented that 'this statement cannot mean that in order to be acquitted the prisoner must "satisfy" the jury.'

  1. Concept of criminal liability - revision notes.

    Chan Fook 1994 - ABH Burstow, Ireland 1996 - Severe physiological = GBH R v Brown & Stetton 1998 - Severely beat up father - Wanted to be a transsexual Caused lacerations to face - GBH Knocked out teeth - GBH Broke nose (sometimes ABH)

  2. Critically evaluate the way rape cases involving intoxicated victims are handled in criminal law.

    provide sufficient guidance to jurors on the meaning of key aspects of the actus reus of rape'41. It has been suggested that there should be a statutory definition of key terms such as 'capacity' to guide juries and more guidance on the issue of intoxication and consent.

  1. Discussing Homicide - constructive manslaughter.

    At his trial he argued that the jury, should be allowed to take into account the fact that, at the time of the killing, he was suffering from a severe depressive illness which reduced his powers of self-control. The judge rejected this argument and directed the jury as follows: 'The

  2. At common law, the prosecution were generally prohibited from mentioning the accused's bad character ...

    The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d) or (g) if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

  1. Recklessness. This essay will deal with how the complicated subject of recklessness has developed ...

    However, the commission failed to propose any definition on recklessness. 'The Court of Appeal, prior to 1981, held that 'reckless' in the 1971 act bore the Cunningham meaning, but in that year the House of Lords decided in Caldwell and Lawrence7, that where the statute uses reckless, a different test

  2. Law of Rape

    offender than would a conviction for sexual assault, and that there would therefore be some advantages in retaining the term, even if its definition and scope were extended. It is commented that rape should not refer only to penile penetration of the vagina only.

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