R. V G R. V R House of Lords 16 October 2003
Page1
R. v G R. v R
House of Lords 16 October 2003
Case Analysis
Where Reported
[2003] UKHL 50; [2004] 1 A.C. 1034; [2003] 3 W.L.R. 1060; [2003] 4 All E.R. 765; [2004] 1 Cr. App. R. 21; (2003) 167 J.P. 621; [2004] Crim. L.R. 369; (2003) 167 J.P.N. 955; (2003) 100(43) L.S.G. 31; Times, October 17, 2003; Official Transcript Subject: Criminal law Keywords: Capacity; Criminal damage; Knowledge; Mens rea; Recklessness Summary: A person who gave no thought to the risk of damage or injury resulting from his conduct could not be found guilty of a serious criminal offence on the basis of recklessness if, by reason of his age or capacity, the risk would not have been obvious to him even if he had thought about it. Abstract: A person acts recklessly within the meaning of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.1 in respect of 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 that risk. G and R appealed against a decision ([2002] EWCA Crim 1992, [2003] 3 All E.R. 206) upholding their convictions for arson under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.1(1) and s.1(3). In August 2000 the appellants, who were then aged 11 and 12 respectively, went camping without their parents' permission. During the night they set fire to newspapers in the yard at the back of a shop and threw the lit newspapers under a wheelie bin. They left the yard without putting out the fire. The burning newspapers set fire to the bin and subsequently spread to the shop. Approximately GBP 1 million worth of damage was caused to the shop and adjoining buildings. The appellants' case at trial was that they expected the newspapers to burn themselves out on the concrete floor of the yard and it was accepted that neither of them appreciated the risk of the fire spreading in the way that it did. The trial judge had directed the jury in accordance with the objective test given in R. v Caldwell (James) [1982] A.C. 341 . The Court of the Appeal certified
R. v G R. v R
House of Lords 16 October 2003
Case Analysis
Where Reported
[2003] UKHL 50; [2004] 1 A.C. 1034; [2003] 3 W.L.R. 1060; [2003] 4 All E.R. 765; [2004] 1 Cr. App. R. 21; (2003) 167 J.P. 621; [2004] Crim. L.R. 369; (2003) 167 J.P.N. 955; (2003) 100(43) L.S.G. 31; Times, October 17, 2003; Official Transcript Subject: Criminal law Keywords: Capacity; Criminal damage; Knowledge; Mens rea; Recklessness Summary: A person who gave no thought to the risk of damage or injury resulting from his conduct could not be found guilty of a serious criminal offence on the basis of recklessness if, by reason of his age or capacity, the risk would not have been obvious to him even if he had thought about it. Abstract: A person acts recklessly within the meaning of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.1 in respect of 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 that risk. G and R appealed against a decision ([2002] EWCA Crim 1992, [2003] 3 All E.R. 206) upholding their convictions for arson under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.1(1) and s.1(3). In August 2000 the appellants, who were then aged 11 and 12 respectively, went camping without their parents' permission. During the night they set fire to newspapers in the yard at the back of a shop and threw the lit newspapers under a wheelie bin. They left the yard without putting out the fire. The burning newspapers set fire to the bin and subsequently spread to the shop. Approximately GBP 1 million worth of damage was caused to the shop and adjoining buildings. The appellants' case at trial was that they expected the newspapers to burn themselves out on the concrete floor of the yard and it was accepted that neither of them appreciated the risk of the fire spreading in the way that it did. The trial judge had directed the jury in accordance with the objective test given in R. v Caldwell (James) [1982] A.C. 341 . The Court of the Appeal certified