Intention And Recklessness

Question 0

Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Answer 0

Foresight of consequences does not equal intention, it is simply evidence for intention

Question 1

Woolin (1999)

Answer 1

House of Lords held:
If the result was a virtual certainty, and
The defendant appreciated that this was the case
Then the jury would be entitled to find oblique intention, but they do not have to.

Question 2

Steane (1947)

Answer 2

D broadcast for the Nazi’s in order to save his family from a concentration camp, his purpose was to save his family, intention to help the enemy wasn’t present. Doctrine of double effect.

Question 3

R v Cunningham (1957)

Answer 3

The defendant ripped a gas metre from the wall so he could take the money out, this caused gas to seep into the house next door and kill someone. The statute he was charged under used the work maliciously, this was held to mean that the result could have been done intentionally or recklessly, test for recklessness was given.
Needs to be foresight of risk, decision to take the risk and taking the risk was unjustifiable.

Question 4

Briggs (1977)

Answer 4

The defendant owned a house which was occupied by 3 women, he got into a dispute with them over a garage and pulled the door handle off a car belonging to one of the women, held: foresight and risk must coincide.

Question 5

Stephenson (1973)

Answer 5

The defendant set fire to a haystack and caused £1m of damage, physiatrist gave evidence that he was a schizophrenic and less able to appreciate the risk, held: foresight of risk wasn’t present, conviction was quashed.

Question 6

Parker (Daryll) (1977)

Answer 6

Defendant had a very stressful day, in a fit of frustration he damaged a telephone box, he claimed that it did not occur to him that his action may damage the phone, held: Cunningham decision covered situations where defendant had closed his mind as to the possibility of risk

Question 7

Caldwell (1982)

Answer 7

Defendant got very drunk and set fire to a hotel, he was too drunk at the time to appreciate that he was causing any risk to life. New definition of recklessness
If D realised that there was some risk that his action would cause the relevant consequence and he continued anyway, or
It would have been obvious that D’s act could cause the relevant consequence and D gave no thought to the possibility of there being any such risk.

Question 8

R v G and another (2003)

Answer 8

Defendants in this case were 11 year old children who accidentally set fire to a wheelie bin, the fire spread causing £1m of damage. The children had not appreciated any risk related to their actions. House of Lords held convictions shouldn’t be based on objective recklessness reversed Caldwell