R v Lawrence (Stephen) [1982]
Share
R v Lawrence (Stephen) [1982] AC 510 in the House of Lords followed the precedent set in R v Caldwell [1982] regarding the definition of recklessness. In R v Lawrence, the defendant was charged with causing death by reckless driving under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1972.
Lord Diplock, consistent with his position in Caldwell, provided a definition of recklessness in the context of causing death by reckless driving. He stated:
"Recklessness on the part of the doer of an act presupposes that there is something in the circumstances that would have drawn the attention of an ordinary prudent individual to the possibility that his act was capable of causing the kind of serious harmful consequences that the section that created the offence was intended to prevent, and that the risk of those harmful consequences occurring was not so slight that an ordinary prudent individual would feel justified in treating them as negligible."
Lord Diplock emphasised that recklessness requires the doer of the act to either fail to give any thought to the possibility of the risk or, having recognised the risk, to nevertheless proceed with the act. He formulated a standard direction to a jury for cases of reckless manslaughter due to driving. The instruction to the jury involved two key elements:
The jury, according to Lord Diplock, should consider whether the risk created by the defendant's driving was both obvious and serious, using the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist. If satisfied that an obvious and serious risk was created, the jury could infer that the defendant was in a state of mind required to constitute the offence of causing death by reckless driving. However, Lord Diplock also emphasised that the jury should take into account any explanation given by the defendant regarding his state of mind, which could potentially displace the inference.
In summary, R v Lawrence (Stephen) reaffirmed the definition of recklessness as established in R v Caldwell, particularly in the context of reckless driving leading to death. The judgment provided guidance on how to instruct a jury when considering charges related to reckless manslaughter due to driving.
Lord Diplock, consistent with his position in Caldwell, provided a definition of recklessness in the context of causing death by reckless driving. He stated:
"Recklessness on the part of the doer of an act presupposes that there is something in the circumstances that would have drawn the attention of an ordinary prudent individual to the possibility that his act was capable of causing the kind of serious harmful consequences that the section that created the offence was intended to prevent, and that the risk of those harmful consequences occurring was not so slight that an ordinary prudent individual would feel justified in treating them as negligible."
Lord Diplock emphasised that recklessness requires the doer of the act to either fail to give any thought to the possibility of the risk or, having recognised the risk, to nevertheless proceed with the act. He formulated a standard direction to a jury for cases of reckless manslaughter due to driving. The instruction to the jury involved two key elements:
- The defendant was driving the vehicle in a manner that created an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury or substantial damage to property.
- The defendant, in driving in that manner, did so without giving any thought to the possibility of such a risk or, having recognised the risk, proceeded to take it.
The jury, according to Lord Diplock, should consider whether the risk created by the defendant's driving was both obvious and serious, using the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist. If satisfied that an obvious and serious risk was created, the jury could infer that the defendant was in a state of mind required to constitute the offence of causing death by reckless driving. However, Lord Diplock also emphasised that the jury should take into account any explanation given by the defendant regarding his state of mind, which could potentially displace the inference.
In summary, R v Lawrence (Stephen) reaffirmed the definition of recklessness as established in R v Caldwell, particularly in the context of reckless driving leading to death. The judgment provided guidance on how to instruct a jury when considering charges related to reckless manslaughter due to driving.
