9746801
| Question | Answer |
| Cunningham 1957 | Leading case on subjective recklessness. D tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house in order to steal the money in it. This caused gas to seep into the house next-door, where a woman was affected by it. D was not guilty of maliciouslt adminstering a noxious thing becuase he did not realise there was a risk of this happeneing. |
| Savage and Parmenter 1992 | Where the word 'malicious' is used in an Act of Parliament then it means either doing something intentionally or being subjectively reckless about the risk involved. |
| Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell 1981 | *No longer law* Objective recklessness - D could be liable even where he did not realise the risk so long as the reasonable man did. D had a grievance against the owner of a hotel. He got very drunk and decided to set fire to the hotel. The fire was put out quickly, without serious damage to the hotel. D was charged with arson which required D to intend endangerment to life or was reckless as to whether life was endangered. D was convicted and upheld on appeal. |
| Elliot v C 1983 | Illustartes the problem with objective recklessness. D was a 14-year-old girl with learning difficulties. She did not appreciate the risk that her act might set a shed on fire. She was found guilty because ordinary adults would have realised the risk. |
| G and Another 2003 | Finally overruled Caldwell and objective recklessness. D's were two boys, aged 11 and 12, who set fire to some bundles of newspapers in a shop yard. They thre them under a large wheelie bin and left. Tehy thought that the fire would go out by itself. In fact, the bin caught fire and this spread to the shop and other buildings, causing about £1 million worth of damage. On appeal the House of Lords quashed their convictions stating that D cannot be guilty unless he realised the risk and decided to take it anyway. |
| Attorney-General's Reference (No.3 of 2003) 2004 | Confirmed that subjective recklessness applies to any offence where recklessnes is sufficient for the mens rea |
| Adamako 1994 | Adamako introduced a test of gross negligence manslaughter rather than recklessness in any form. Following this it was initially thought that recklessness was no longer relevant in the law of manslaugther. |
| Lidar 2000 | Confirmed that involuntary manslaugther could still be based on subjective recklessness. D and others had been asked to leave a public house in Leicester. They went into the pub car park and got into a Range Rover, with D as dirive. One of the passengers shouted something at V, who was the doorman of the pub. V approached the vehicle and put his arms through the open front passenger window. D then drove off, with V half in and half out of the window. After about 225 metres, V was dragged under the rear wheel of the Range Rover and suffered injuries from which he died. D was convicted of manslaughter. |
0 comments
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.