StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Less Distinguished Chapters of the Common Law Analysis and Critically Evaluate the Concept of Recklessness - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
The paper "Less Distinguished Chapters of the Common Law Analysis and Critically Evaluate the Concept of Recklessness" claims that the piecemeal judicial approach to recklessness has perpetuated confusion with recklessness effectively have two different legal meanings applied to different offenses…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER98.2% of users find it useful
Less Distinguished Chapters of the Common Law Analysis and Critically Evaluate the Concept of Recklessness
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Less Distinguished Chapters of the Common Law Analysis and Critically Evaluate the Concept of Recklessness"

The law relating to the mens rea of recklessness has been criticised as a patchwork of norms, riddled with inconsistency1. The piecemeal judicial approach to recklessness has perpetuated confusion with recklessness effectively have two different legal meanings applied to different offences2. The House of Lords decision in R v G 3 has been heralded by some as closing “one of the less distinguished chapters of the common law” with regard to the definition of recklessness and the focus of this analysis is to critically evaluate the impact of the decision. If we firstly the development of law in this area, recklessness covers criminal liability for taking “unjustified” risks4. However, the law relating to liability on grounds of recklessness distinguished between subjective and objective recklessness and has varied according to the type of offence5. Subjective recklessness was established in R v Cunningham6, where the defendant was charged with the offence of administering a noxious thing as to endanger life. It was determined that the word “maliciously” meant either an actual intention to do that particular type of harm that was in fact done, or recklessness in the sense that the defendant when acting realised there was some risk of harm occurring, but undertook the dangerous act notwithstanding. The second was subjective recklessness, which required the defendant to have foreseen the risk himself. However, in the case of R v Parker7 it was held that where the accused “closed his mind to the obvious8” he could still be reckless. Additionally, the test for objective recklessness was set out in the case of R v Caldwell9, where it was determined that a defendant could still be criminally liable even if he had not appreciated the risk but “an ordinary prudent individual” would have realised the risk. The issue was ultimately up to the jury to determine upon the facts of the case. Moreover, objective recklessness requires a risk that must be obvious to the reasonable man and need not be obvious to the defendant himself. However, the Caldwell decision created controversy for being narrow and Halpin argued that it effectively lead to categorisation of recklessness into five categories: namely: 1) Cunningham recklessness maintained for assaults; 2) narrow Caldwell recklessness for criminal damage offences; 3) Modifiable Caldwell recklessness for reckless driving offences; 4) adapted Caldwell recklessness for rape; 5) Recklessness for gross negligence manslaughter10. Moreover, Halpin asserts that “apart from the sheer inconsistency across offence over time, there was evident unfairness in the recognition given to the need to ameliorate the strict version of Caldwell recklessness”11. The inconsistency in practice is further evidenced by the discrepancies, leading to uncertainty as to when and what type of recklessness was applicable to any particular case. For example in the case of Eliot v C12 a fourteen year old with learning difficulties was convicted. There was doubt placed over this conviction as it was viewed as harsh because the risk may not have been obvious to a person of her age with same learning difficulties. Critics’ dissatisfaction with the narrow Caldwell decision was further perpetuated by the decision in the case of R v Coles13whilst ostensibly demonstrating a shift in approach by reference to the unmeritorious and meritorious defendant distinction, this appeared to be limited to medical negligence liability decisions such as R v Adomako14 and Halpin further asserts that “one practical upshot thus far is that when it comes to endangering life the courts judge the conduct of the qualified adults (doctors) more leniently than the actions of incapable young persons15”. Moreover, the judiciary appeared to completely ignore the dicta in Adomako, which expressly rejected the narrow Caldwell definition of recklessness. Indeed, in the Caldwell case itself, Lord Diplock had asserted that the objective recklessness test should apply to all determinations of recklessness as the Cunningham subjective test had served its purpose. However, this decision was criticised due to the inconsistency of direction as to who the risk had to be obvious to and whether the reasonable person test was always applicable16. For example, in the case of W (a minor) v Dolbey17the defendants had been shooting a rifle gun without considering that it was loaded and therefore this could result in two different convictions under the Caldwell and Cunningham recklessness test. The Caldwell definition of recklessness was directly addressed in the case of R v G18, which has been hailed as a delivering a fatal blow to Caldwell in so far as the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is concerned. In R v G it was argued that Caldwell recklessness should be abolished and Lord Bingham asserted that “Caldwell recklessness infringed important principle that a person was only guilty of a serious crime if they had a guilty mind19” Lord Bingham determined that Parliament’s intention in the Criminal Damage Act was that the term reckless should be given a subjective test and that the House of Lords had fallen into an “understandable but demonstrable error20”. However, Lord Bingham felt that on this occasion it would be right to overrule the past precedent. Lord Bingham further commented that the controversial concept of recklessness was susceptible of creating unfair results on grounds that by imposing liability for risks that the defendant could not apprehend this himself. Lord Steyn supported Lord Bingham’s extrapolations with further reference to the fact that it was not reasonable for children in particular to be penalised on the strength of what someone else would apprehend as an unjustifiable risk21. Lord Steyn made further reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of The Child in further supporting the argument that the jury under Caldwell had to consider whether it was obvious to a reasonable person and not if it was obvious to the defendant, which was risked unfair prejudice to the defendant. As such, Lord Steyn asserted that “it is one thing to punish a defendant for failing to foresee a risk that he should have foreseen, but to do so is only fair in cases where a defendant could have foreseen the risk22”. Therefore, R v G asserted subjective recklessness as the appropriate test. However, whilst R v G was a welcome move in formally acknowledging the negative ramifications of the narrow Caldwell test, it remains uncertain as to what survived R v G23. Prima facie the decision appears to stick a nail in the Caldwell coffin as far as the Criminal Damage Act is concerned however some commentators argue that Caldwell recklessness has survived for all but criminal damage24. This appears to be supported by the decision in R v Mark and another25which on appeal considered whether the decision in R v G had altered the position regarding mens rea for gross negligent manslaughter in Adomako. It was asserted that subjective foresight of the defendant was not necessary in gross negligent manslaughter and that the decision in R v G was limited to recklessness in context of the statutory provisions of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. As such, this judicial rationale appears to negate the significance of R v G and leave the law in the same pre-2004 position of ad hoc categorisation of recklessness according to the nature of the offence. Therefore, whilst the House of Lords decision in R v G to a degree “produced a historic moment in the development of criminal law26” questions remain as to the extent of the change of direction in practice. Moreover, Halpin posits that “there are two aspects of the leading speeches of Bingham and Steyn which indicate serious failings with regard to this wider aspiration27”. Firstly, Halpin argues that Bingham’s strict subjectivist approach could relegate the offences requiring subjective mens rea to strict liability offences or alternatively acquittal on a strict interpretation28. Secondly, they only overruled Caldwell recklessness to the case of Caldwell itself, therefore leaving it open to applicability and effectively untouched insofar as offences outside the realm of criminal damage as evidenced by the decision in R v Mark (and another)29 and as such, the law on recklessness remains remain a grey legal area. BIBLIOGRAPHY Blackstone’s Criminal Practice Bulletin (2008). Oxford University Press. Michael Allen., (2007) .Textbook on Criminal Law. 9th Edition Oxford University Press. Andrew Halpin (2004) Definition in the Criminal Law. Hart Publishing Jonathan Herring (2006). Text Cases and Materials. 2nd Edition Oxford University Press. A, Reed., B, Fitzpatrick., and Peter Seago (2006). Criminal Law. 3rd Revised Edition Sweet & Maxwell. Smith and Hogan (2005). Criminal Law. 11th Edition Oxford University Press. Adrian Keane., (2005). The Modern Law of Evidence. 6th Edition Oxford University Press. Michael Molan., (2003) Modern Criminal Law. Routledge Cavendish. Michael Molan (2001). Sourcebook on Criminal Law. Cavendish Publishing. D. Ormerod (2008). Smith and Hogan Criminal Law. 12th Edition Oxford University Press. Wilson (2003). Criminal Law: Doctrine and Theory. 2nd Edition Longman. Legislation available at www.opsi.gov.uk Other websites: www.lawcom.gov.uk Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(Less Distinguished Chapters of the Common Law Analysis and Critically Evaluate the Concept of Recklessness Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words, n.d.)
Less Distinguished Chapters of the Common Law Analysis and Critically Evaluate the Concept of Recklessness Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words. https://studentshare.org/law/1551879-it-has-been-said-by-an-eminent-academic-commentator-that-the-house-of-lords-decision-in-r-v-g-2004-1-ac-1034-closes-one-of-the-less-distinguished-chapters-of-the-common-law-analysis-and-critically-evaluate-the-concept-of-recklessness-in-light-of-this
(Less Distinguished Chapters of the Common Law Analysis and Critically Evaluate the Concept of Recklessness Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 Words)
Less Distinguished Chapters of the Common Law Analysis and Critically Evaluate the Concept of Recklessness Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 Words. https://studentshare.org/law/1551879-it-has-been-said-by-an-eminent-academic-commentator-that-the-house-of-lords-decision-in-r-v-g-2004-1-ac-1034-closes-one-of-the-less-distinguished-chapters-of-the-common-law-analysis-and-critically-evaluate-the-concept-of-recklessness-in-light-of-this.
“Less Distinguished Chapters of the Common Law Analysis and Critically Evaluate the Concept of Recklessness Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 Words”. https://studentshare.org/law/1551879-it-has-been-said-by-an-eminent-academic-commentator-that-the-house-of-lords-decision-in-r-v-g-2004-1-ac-1034-closes-one-of-the-less-distinguished-chapters-of-the-common-law-analysis-and-critically-evaluate-the-concept-of-recklessness-in-light-of-this.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Less Distinguished Chapters of the Common Law Analysis and Critically Evaluate the Concept of Recklessness

Creation of a Contract

The issue in this question requires an analysis of the exclusion clauses and its application by courts and statute....  The first and foremost point that needs to be considered is the point of incorporation that requires analysis of the fact that a clause is properly incorporated or not which can be done by inclusion of a clause in a contractual document which is signed by the other party (L'Estrange v....
14 Pages (3500 words) Essay

Common Law and Sources of Law

the common law: Easyread Super Large Edition 24pt Edition, New York: Routledge.... common law and Sources of Law Name Institution Date As the new manager in my department I would suggest that the employees in my department who will be charged with interacting with the legal department familiarize themselves with the law.... hellip; The employees should understand that common law as practiced in the American judicial system refers to the laws that are developed through the decisions that are made in courts along with tribunals by judges....
3 Pages (750 words) Coursework

Concept Analysis as a Method of Inquiry

The procedure of concept analysis by Wilson begins with isolating value and facts of the concept.... This is achieved by answering the fact with knowledge and giving moral standards of the concept.... the concept is also given a meaning.... The case must be the actual example of the concept.... Using several model cases helps clarify the meaning of the concept.... The next part of the concept analysis procedure will entail a different case that contrasts the actual example of the pain or any case that is not the true example of the concept....
6 Pages (1500 words) Essay

Diagnosis Made Easier Chapters Critique

The foremost objectives of this chapter thus include: providing an explanation of the foundations of diagnosis, introducing the reader to the levels of diagnosis which are expounded upon later in the succeeding chapters of the book.... The foremost objectives of chapter 1, thus, include: providing an explanation of the foundations of diagnosis, introducing the reader to the levels of diagnosis which are expounded upon later in the succeeding chapters of the book, and establishing the basics of diagnosis to equip the audience with an awareness and background information to assist the comprehension of the remaining components of the book....
18 Pages (4500 words) Essay

Intention Recklessness

According to the present law murder occurs when someone unlawfully kills another person with an intention to kill him or with an intention to do serious harm.... The question of whether Fabio intended to kill Allesandro relates to what offence, if any, Fabio should be charged with regarding the death....
4 Pages (1000 words) Case Study

Definition of Common Law

state statutes usually provide that the common law, equity, and statutes in effect in England in 1603, the first year of the reign of James I, shall be deemed part of the law of the jurisdiction.... This paper discusses some common law from the United Kingdom: The Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and regulations in Codes of Practice cover stop and search.... The paper analyses that common law gives citizens rights that they are entitled to and in most respects, it protects the common man....
7 Pages (1750 words) Term Paper

Law of Contract - Good Buys

Each state has diverse laws on indemnity laws though they usually override common law.... ILAC stands for Issue, law, Application, and conclusion.... According to misrepresentation2 concepts of contract law of England, it is possible to make a misrepresentation either by conduct or words although not all things done or said constitute... It is common occurrence for businesses, individuals or organizations to get into agreement, often in writing, for the purpose of taking on the liability or a duty of some other entity....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

The Concept of Recklessness

This report "the concept of recklessness" examines the case of R vs.... Cunningham concerning this concept of recklessness.... This concept of recklessness may comprise of an offense against an individual or a property.... case that better explains this concept of recklessness is the 1982 case of MPC vs.... Under this case, the House of Lords was able to define and identify what constitutes this concept of recklessness....
6 Pages (1500 words) Report
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us