MPC v Caldwell [1982]

R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341 established an objective test for recklessness in English criminal law. This decision marked a significant departure from the previous subjective test for recklessness, emphasising that a defendant's characteristics, including their mental state, should not be considered in determining recklessness. This objective approach was later overturned in R v G and R [2003] UKHL 50, reinstating a more subjective understanding of recklessness.

In R v Caldwell, the defendant drunkenly set fire to a hotel. He pleaded guilty to reckless arson under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 but contested his charge under Section 1(2) of the same Act, which involved reckless endangerment. The defendant argued that he was so intoxicated that the risk of others being in the hotel did not occur to him. The crux of the case was whether the defendant's self-induced intoxication could negate recklessness under Section 1(2).

The House of Lords, by a majority of 3-2, held that the defendant was guilty under Section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Lord Diplock provided the leading judgment, which outlined a new, objective definition of recklessness.

According to Lord Diplock, recklessness encompasses both deciding to ignore a risk of harmful consequences that one has recognised as existing, and failing to give any thought to whether there is any such risk in circumstances where, if any thought were given, it would be obvious that there was.

Under this objective test, a defendant would not be considered reckless if there was nothing in the circumstances to draw the attention of an ordinary prudent individual to the possibility of harmful consequences, or if the risk was so slight that an ordinary prudent person would regard it as negligible.

The ruling reinforced the principle from DPP v Majewski [1977] that self-induced intoxication is not a defence to crimes where recklessness suffices for mens rea. Therefore, the fact that D was unaware of the risk due to his intoxication was irrelevant if the risk would have been obvious to him while sober. This principle underscores the notion that defendants cannot escape liability by voluntarily impairing their mental state.

Lord Diplock also addressed the classification of offences into specific and basic intent, deeming it irrelevant where recklessness as to harmful consequences suffices as mens rea. This clarified that for crimes involving recklessness, the distinction between specific and basic intent offences does not impact the application of the law.

Prior to Caldwell, the subjective test for recklessness, as laid down in R v Cunningham [1957], considered the defendant's actual state of mind. However, an exception was made for self-induced intoxication, which was not a defence to reckless crimes. Caldwell's objective approach was significant because it did not account for the defendant's personal characteristics or state of mind, focusing solely on whether an ordinary prudent person would have recognised the risk.

R v Caldwell represented a pivotal shift towards an objective standard of recklessness in English criminal law, reinforcing the principle that self-induced intoxication does not excuse reckless behaviour. However, this objective test was later rejected in R v G and R, which restored a more subjective understanding of recklessness, aligning with the principle that the defendant's actual state of mind should be considered.

Back to blog

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Yale University
Council of Europe
Baker Mckenzie 
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law


    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory


    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.