Booth v CPS [2006]
Share
Booth v Crown Prosecution Service [2006] EWHC 192 involved an appeal to the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division regarding a conviction for criminal damage. The appellant had engaged in reckless behaviour while under the influence of alcohol and cannabis.
The appellant, having consumed alcohol and cannabis, ran across the road without looking, shouting to someone on the other side. A car was approaching, and the appellant jumped onto the bonnet of the car, causing damage worth £517. The magistrates convicted him of criminal damage, and the appellant appealed on the grounds that the magistrates applied an objective test to recklessness and that the damage caused was an "obviously foreseeable consequence".
The Divisional Court upheld the appellant's conviction for criminal damage. The court held that the magistrates were entitled to find that the appellant was aware of the risk of a collision, and inherent in that risk was not only the potential for personal injury but also the risk of damage to property.
The court noted that although the use of the phrase "would have appreciated" was unfortunate, the magistrates had made a clear finding of fact that the appellant did appreciate the risk. The court also addressed the phrase "deliberately closed his mind to the risks", stating that it demonstrated the appellant's awareness of the risks, as one cannot deliberately close their mind to something of which they are not aware.
In summary, the Divisional Court held that the magistrates were justified in finding that the appellant was aware of the risk, both to himself and to the property (the car), and that his conviction for criminal damage was upheld based on these findings. The case reaffirms the principle that recklessness involves a subjective assessment of the defendant's awareness and appreciation of the risks involved in their actions.
The appellant, having consumed alcohol and cannabis, ran across the road without looking, shouting to someone on the other side. A car was approaching, and the appellant jumped onto the bonnet of the car, causing damage worth £517. The magistrates convicted him of criminal damage, and the appellant appealed on the grounds that the magistrates applied an objective test to recklessness and that the damage caused was an "obviously foreseeable consequence".
The Divisional Court upheld the appellant's conviction for criminal damage. The court held that the magistrates were entitled to find that the appellant was aware of the risk of a collision, and inherent in that risk was not only the potential for personal injury but also the risk of damage to property.
The court noted that although the use of the phrase "would have appreciated" was unfortunate, the magistrates had made a clear finding of fact that the appellant did appreciate the risk. The court also addressed the phrase "deliberately closed his mind to the risks", stating that it demonstrated the appellant's awareness of the risks, as one cannot deliberately close their mind to something of which they are not aware.
In summary, the Divisional Court held that the magistrates were justified in finding that the appellant was aware of the risk, both to himself and to the property (the car), and that his conviction for criminal damage was upheld based on these findings. The case reaffirms the principle that recklessness involves a subjective assessment of the defendant's awareness and appreciation of the risks involved in their actions.
