R v G [2003]
Share
R v G and Another [2003] UKHL 50 is a significant ruling in English criminal law that addressed the concept of recklessness and specifically dealt with the objective recklessness test set out in the earlier case of R v Caldwell [1982].
Two boys, aged 11 and 12, were camping without their parents' permission and set fire to some newspapers they found in the back yard of a shophouse. They left the scene, leaving the burning papers behind. The fire spread, causing approximately £1 million in damage. The boys argued that they expected the fire to burn itself out and were aware of the risk but believed it would not cause harm.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the criticisms of the Caldwell test but initially felt bound by it. However, they referred the matter to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords for further consideration. Lord Bingham, delivering the leading opinion of the unanimous decision, modified the Caldwell test.
According to Lord Bingham, a person acts recklessly if:
This modification brought the test back to a subjective standard, allowing for an assessment based on the defendant's age, experience, and understanding, rather than applying a hypothetical reasonable person standard.
The case of Booth v Crown Prosecution Service [2006] upheld a defendant pedestrian's conviction for criminal damage, where the pedestrian recklessly damaged a vehicle by dashing into the road. This decision emphasised the subjective standard and considered the defendant's awareness of the risk in the circumstances known to him.
The discussion in your information mentions the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill, which was before Parliament to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12. This potential change aimed to consider the understanding and capacity of individuals under the age of 12 when determining criminal responsibility.
In summary, this case marked a departure from the objective recklessness test in Caldwell, introducing a more subjective standard that takes into account the defendant's awareness and the reasonableness of their actions in the circumstances known to them.
Two boys, aged 11 and 12, were camping without their parents' permission and set fire to some newspapers they found in the back yard of a shophouse. They left the scene, leaving the burning papers behind. The fire spread, causing approximately £1 million in damage. The boys argued that they expected the fire to burn itself out and were aware of the risk but believed it would not cause harm.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the criticisms of the Caldwell test but initially felt bound by it. However, they referred the matter to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords for further consideration. Lord Bingham, delivering the leading opinion of the unanimous decision, modified the Caldwell test.
According to Lord Bingham, a person acts recklessly if:
- He is aware of a risk that a circumstance exists or will exist.
- He is aware of a risk that a particular result will occur.
- It is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.
This modification brought the test back to a subjective standard, allowing for an assessment based on the defendant's age, experience, and understanding, rather than applying a hypothetical reasonable person standard.
The case of Booth v Crown Prosecution Service [2006] upheld a defendant pedestrian's conviction for criminal damage, where the pedestrian recklessly damaged a vehicle by dashing into the road. This decision emphasised the subjective standard and considered the defendant's awareness of the risk in the circumstances known to him.
The discussion in your information mentions the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill, which was before Parliament to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12. This potential change aimed to consider the understanding and capacity of individuals under the age of 12 when determining criminal responsibility.
In summary, this case marked a departure from the objective recklessness test in Caldwell, introducing a more subjective standard that takes into account the defendant's awareness and the reasonableness of their actions in the circumstances known to them.
