Recklessness & Criminal Damage

Question 1

R v G and R [2004]

Answer 1

• 2 boys (Ds) aged 11 and 12 found some newspapers, set fire to them and placed them under a wheelie bin
• fire caught and spread, leading to £1 million worth of damage
• boys were charged with arson contrary to s.1(1) CDA 1971 -> question was whether they had the mens rea
• trial judge (relying on Caldwell [1982]) directed the jury that a defendant would be ‘reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged’ if (a) they were to perform an act that, in fact, creates an obvious risk that property will be destroyed or damaged, and (b) when doing so, they had either given no thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or not recognized that there is some risk involved and had nonetheless gone on to perform the act
• HoL rejected this test, saying test needed to have element of subjectivity to account for young people and mentally incapacitated people
• defined ‘recklessness’ as:
  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.

Question 2

R v Parker [1977]

Answer 2

• D, in a fit of anger, slammed the handset onto the telephone, causing damage
• D argued he wasn’t reckless because he hadn’t ignored the risk, he had just never even thought about the risk
• Court held that ‘wilful blindness’ -> closing one’s mind to a possible consequence that should be obvious -> means that they are still reckless
• conviction was upheld

Question 3

Chief Constable of Avon v Shimmen (1987)

Answer 3

• D tried to show off his martial arts skills, but he wasn’t good
• kicked a shop window and broke the glass
• D argued he was not reckless because he had been confident in his abilities - prosecution appealed
• HoL allowed appeal because a defendant who recognises a risk exists if he does not take precautions is reckless even if he believes he has taken those precautions and thereby minimised or eliminated the risk
• backs the idea that there is an objective standard