Uk Recklessness Essay
Introduction
The law to recklessness has developed and changed over a very long time and for much of this time the two types of recklessness have been Cunningham Recklessness and Caldwell recklessness , however this has recently changed. In this essay I am going to talk about the history of recklessness, how the case of R v G and another 2003 has affected it and the proposals for reform which were considered as a result of the case.
The History on the Law on Recklessness
The law on recklessness has a long and complicated history. It started in section 51 of the Malicious Damage Act 1861 which stated that 'whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously commit any damage, injury, or spoil being to an amount exceeding five pounds, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. ' The first person to be charged under this act was in the case of R v Pembliton 1874 . In this case the defendant had been fighting in the street and thrown a large stone at the people he was fighting, however it missed them and it hit a window which caused damage exceeding five pounds. Even though he did not intend to break the window the jury convicted him but later the conviction was quashed as he did not intend to 'unlawfully and maliciously ' break the window. This was seen when Blackburn said 'I think it is impossible to say in this case that the prisoner has maliciously done an act which he did not intend to do. ' This made the courts interpret that 'maliciously ' meant that intention needed to be proved but they were inclined that intention could be shown by proof of reckless disregard of a perceived risk. This approach was followed in R v Welch 1875 in which the courts decided that the defendant intended to kill, maim or wound a mare and he still carried on recklessly and not caring at all about whether the mare was injured or not.
The Outline of Criminal Law published in 1902 said the meaning of 'maliciously ' in reference to arson. It stated that ' it is essential to arson that the
The law to recklessness has developed and changed over a very long time and for much of this time the two types of recklessness have been Cunningham Recklessness and Caldwell recklessness , however this has recently changed. In this essay I am going to talk about the history of recklessness, how the case of R v G and another 2003 has affected it and the proposals for reform which were considered as a result of the case.
The History on the Law on Recklessness
The law on recklessness has a long and complicated history. It started in section 51 of the Malicious Damage Act 1861 which stated that 'whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously commit any damage, injury, or spoil being to an amount exceeding five pounds, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. ' The first person to be charged under this act was in the case of R v Pembliton 1874 . In this case the defendant had been fighting in the street and thrown a large stone at the people he was fighting, however it missed them and it hit a window which caused damage exceeding five pounds. Even though he did not intend to break the window the jury convicted him but later the conviction was quashed as he did not intend to 'unlawfully and maliciously ' break the window. This was seen when Blackburn said 'I think it is impossible to say in this case that the prisoner has maliciously done an act which he did not intend to do. ' This made the courts interpret that 'maliciously ' meant that intention needed to be proved but they were inclined that intention could be shown by proof of reckless disregard of a perceived risk. This approach was followed in R v Welch 1875 in which the courts decided that the defendant intended to kill, maim or wound a mare and he still carried on recklessly and not caring at all about whether the mare was injured or not.
The Outline of Criminal Law published in 1902 said the meaning of 'maliciously ' in reference to arson. It stated that ' it is essential to arson that the