“The case of Caldwell is unduly harsh in its effects, but has increasingly become irrelevant to the law on recklessness”. How far do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer.

... "The case of Caldwell is unduly harsh in its effects, but has increasingly become irrelevant to the law on recklessness" How far do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer. The case of Caldwell has had a major impact on the law on recklessness. Before Caldwell, it was generally agreed by case law and by academic opinion that the test for recklessness was subjective: i.e. the defendant must himself have realised the risk. It was not an objective test based on the standards of the reasonable man. Any liability based on those objective terms was classed as liability for negligence. This was known as Subjective recklessness, or Cunningham recklessness. For a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness he must have consciously undertaken an unjust risk. He must realize that there is a risk involved but if he continues to carry on with his conduct, then he is

want to read more? →