Search results
- Certain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove the mens rea on the basis of ‘recklessness’. In essence, recklessness means the taking of an unjustified risk by the accused that leads to unlawful harm or damage.
www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/recklessness-in-criminal-casesRecklessness in criminal cases | Legal Guidance - LexisNexis
People also ask
What does recklessness mean in criminal law?
What does'recklessness' mean in a criminal case?
What is recklessness under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 S1?
What is recklessness V Cunningham?
What is the subjective test for recklessness?
What happens if recklessness is too subjective?
Recklessness in criminal law has resulted in conflicting opinions as to whether a subjective test should be applied or an objective test. Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s1 a person acts recklessly when they are are aware of the risk that would occur and it would be unreasonable to take that risk yet they do the act anyway.
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.
In essence, recklessness means the taking of an unjustified risk by the accused that leads to unlawful harm or damage. The subjective test for recklessness was reaffirmed by the House of Lords in R v G.
“A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to— (i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; (ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.”: [41]
“A person acts … ‘recklessly’ within the meaning of s 1 of the 1971 Act with respect to – (i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; (i i) a result when he is aware
- 16KB
- 2
How is recklessness in the criminal law now defined? Does the law draw a clear and satisfactory distinction between reckless and negligent behaviour, or between recklessness and intention? Generally, recklessness is defined as the conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk.
The appropriate test for recklessness is subjective, which means that the in order for the defendant to be culpable and to be said to have been reckless as to a given risk, he must first be aware of it. In the present case this was not met and so the appeal was allowed.
