Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Until 1981, the leading authority on recklessness was R v Cunningham [1957]. The defendant was charged under section 23 of the offences Against the Persons Act 1861
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Mon Oct 15 2007
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
Lord Diplock stated in 1981, in Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell [1982] AC 341, that a person is reckless if "a) he does an act which in fact creates an obvious risk that property would be destroyed or damaged and b) when he does that act he either has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or has recognized that there was some risk involved but has nonetheless gone on to do it."1 Lord Diplock's decision in this case was to change, for two decades, how the courts ruled on instances of recklessness. The statement was in essence an attempt to clarify what has been a confusing area in criminal law but as will be shown actually had the inverse effect. This essay will look at the law prior to this statement and discuss the ramifications this judgement was to have on cases involving...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 149,430 others
