R v Caldwell

The House of Lords introduced an objective test of recklessness for criminal damage, later overruled in R v G.

Citation
[1982] AC 341
Court
House of Lords
Year
1982
Subject
Criminal Law
Topic
Mens rea

Facts

Mr Caldwell had a grievance against the owner of a hotel where he had worked. One night, while very drunk, he set fire to the hotel. The fire was put out before serious damage was done, and no one was hurt. He was charged with arson with intent to endanger life or being reckless as to whether life would be endangered, under section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. He said that he was so drunk that it had not occurred to him that there might be people in the hotel.

Legal principle

The House of Lords held that recklessness under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 included not only cases where the defendant foresaw the risk, but also cases where he failed to give any thought to the possibility of an obvious risk. Lord Diplock said that a person is reckless if he does an act which in fact creates an obvious risk of damage and either has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or has recognised that there was some risk and gone on to do it. The objective test was widely criticised, especially for its harsh effect on children and people of limited ability, and was overruled by the House of Lords in R v G [2003] UKHL 50.

Related cases on mens rea

Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.

Back to all law cases

This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.

Contact Us

Enquire about our bespoke academic solutions