Search results
Key point. This case laid down an objective test for recklessness where the defendant’s characteristics, including his mental state, is not to be taken into account. The objective test was later rejected in R v G and R [2003] UKHL 50.
In R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341 a new definition of recklessness was adopted. In late 1979, Caldwell, a disgruntled former hotel employee who had recently been fired by his boss, got very drunk one night and decided to set fire to his former employer's hotel, intending to damage the property.
The second approach followed the case of MPC v Caldwell which interpreted recklessness in an objective way. Lord Diplock stated that a defendant would be considered reckless if he does an act which creates obvious risk or property damage.
An outline of the law on recklessness and its role in establishing criminal liability. Contains a consideration of the key cases of MPC v Caldwell, R v Cunningham and R v G & R with a consideration of the impact and problems with each type of recklessness.
At his trial he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging the property of another, contrary to s 1(1), but pleaded not guilty to the more serious charge under s 1(2) of damaging property with intent to endanger life or being reckless whether life would be endangered.
The issue in this appeal was whether self-induced intoxication affects the determination of whether the defendant intended to endanger the life of another and whether he was reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered, in the context of s.1(2)(b) CDA 1971.
House of Lords upheld his conviction and formulated what has become known as Caldwell recklessness: A person is reckless as to whether property is destroyed or damaged where: (1) he does an act which in fact creates an obvious risk that property will be destroyed or damaged and.
