Culpable and Reckless Conduct

Question 1

what are culpable and reckless acts

Answer 1

either;
- Cause injury to others or
- Create a risk of injury

Question 2

what must conduct require

Answer 2

doesn’t require proof of injury, but must display high degree of recklessness or indifference of potential consequences

Question 3

what are the two general offences

Answer 3

• reckless injury
• reckless endangerment

Question 4

briefly explain reckless injury

Answer 4

• Criminal offence to recklessly injure a person
• Reckless conduct which causes actual injury
• Must be a causal link between conduct and injury

Question 5

briefly explain reckless endangerment

Answer 5

It’s a criminal offence to act with reckless behavior that is objectively dangerous to others

Question 6

what are the three specific offences

Answer 6

• Culpable and reckless discharge of firearms
• Culpable and reckless administration of harmful substances
• Culpable and reckless supply of harmful substances

Question 7

what offences do ‘offences of culpable and reckless conduct causing injury and offences of assault’ relate to

Answer 7

• Non-fatal
• Non-sexual
• Causes harm or threatens harm

Question 8

differences between reckless injury and reckless endangerment, and assault

Answer 8

• Recklessness behavior or act is a consequence of risk-taking, while assault is a crime of intent
• reckless injury and reckless endangerment is unintentional while assault can’t be committed carelessly, recklessly, or negligently
• MR for reckless injury + E is objective or subjective assessment of recklessness, while for assault it is evil intent

Question 9

what is the mens rea of both general offences

Answer 9

recklessness that is a consequence of risk taking

Question 10

what are the two approaches used by the courts to determine the mens rea

Answer 10

• Objective approach
  Reasonable men test
  Is this a ‘risk’ which the reasonable man would have taken/ understood
• Subjective approach

Question 11

case facts for HMA v Harris 1993

Answer 11

• indictment contained two charges;
• assault to severe injury
• Culpably willfully and recklessly seized hold of the complainer and performed all the acts libelled in the assault charge
• Both charges libelled the same conduct but a different mens rea was required
• Seizing hold of the complainer, pushing her in the body and causing her to fall down the stairs and onto the roadway as a result of which she was struck by a motor vehicle to the complainer’s severe injury and permanent disfigurement
• AR; accused pushed the V down the stairs onto a road where she was struck by a passing car
• MR; accused had unintentionally but recklessly caused injury to another

Question 12

what approach is most common to a degree of ‘recklessness’

Answer 12

• Objective approach is most common
• A high level of evidence is required

Question 13

case facts of RHW v HMA 1982

Answer 13

• Dropped a bottle out of the window of a 15th floor flat
• Severely injured a pedestrian
• There was an utter disregard of what the consequences of the act in question may be so far as the public are concerned

Question 14

what is a Deliberate Risk taker and a Risk taker unaware of risk + cases

Answer 14

• Deliberate Risk taker; knows conduct presents risks, Allan v Patterson 1980
• Risk taker unaware of risk; indifferent to the consequences, Quinn v Cunningham 1956

Question 15

what is the AR for Reckless Endangerment Culpable and Reckless Endangering of the Lieges

Answer 15

• Recklessly endangering the safety of public
• Injury need not to be caused BUT behavior must be objectively dangerous to others

Question 16

case for recklessly endangering the safety of public

Answer 16

Normand v Robinson 1993

Question 17

what must the appeal decision always be like

Answer 17

• a matter of fact and degree whether the standard of wicked or criminal culpability had been established
• Court could infer criminal indifference to the consequences from the evidence
• Charge of reckless endangerment was satisfied

Question 18

case facts of Macphail v Clark 1982 (danger to public)

Answer 18

• Burning straw in a field near a road
• Smoke caused poor visibility and accident occurred on the road
• Accused demonstrated reckless indifference to the consequences of his actions

Question 19

case facts of Normand v Morrison 1993 (no actual injury required)

Answer 19

• When asked the accused denied there was an unprotected needle in her handbag
• Her behaviour was deemed culpable and reckless
• No actual injury occurred, but there was a danger of injury that could be regarded as culpable and reckless

Question 20

case facts of Donaldson v Normand 1997 (defence to recklessness)

Answer 20

• Accused denied knowing he had a needle in his sock
• Argued necessary mens rea was absent due to intoxication
• NO Defence – loss of memory was due to self-induced intoxication

Question 21

what are the three specific offences

Answer 21

• Culpable and reckless discharge of firearms
• Culpable and reckless administration of harmful substances
• Culpable and reckless supply of harmful substances