R v G
The House of Lords used the Practice Statement to overrule its own decision on recklessness in criminal damage.
Facts
Two boys, aged 11 and 12, camping out without their parents' permission, set fire to newspapers in the yard behind a shop and threw them under a large wheelie bin. They expected the fire to burn itself out, but it spread to the shop and nearby buildings, causing about £1 million of damage. They were convicted of arson under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, on the basis that they were reckless under the objective test in R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341, because the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable adult, even though it had not occurred to them.
Legal principle
The House of Lords quashed their convictions and overruled R v Caldwell. Recklessness under the 1971 Act requires that the defendant was aware of a risk and that, in the circumstances known to him, it was unreasonable to take it. Lord Bingham said that it is a salutary principle that conviction of serious crime should depend on proof not simply that the defendant caused an injurious result but that his state of mind when so acting was culpable, and that Caldwell had misinterpreted the Act and was capable of leading to obvious unfairness, especially to children. The House departed from Caldwell under the 1966 Practice Statement.
Related cases on judicial precedent
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- Austin v Southwark London Borough Council [2010] UKSC 28, [2011] 1 AC 355
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
- Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910
- Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264
- Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349
- Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9, [2016] AC 908
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
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.
