Judgement for the case R v G
Table Of Contents
Two boys set fire to some papers and this ended up causing £2M damage.
They were convicted at trial with the judge directing the jury (as he was bound to do after Caldwell) that if the risk the boys created was obvious to the reasonable bystander they were guilty of recklessness and hence arson.
-
HL allowed the boys’ appeal, overruling Caldwell and determining that the test they would now apply was subjective.
The word “reckless” in Criminal Damage Act (CDA) was not intended to overrule the mens rea (as the objective test did).
The objective interpretation was regarded as “offensive to principle and apt to cause injustice” (Lord Bingham).
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on R v G
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedRelated Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.