Law 5110 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Waste Container, Abh, Transferred Intent
The Caldwell years 1981 – 2003
-Caldwell introduced an objective form of recklessness. Recklessness was to be
determined according to what the ordinary, prudent individual would have foreseen, as
opposed to the Cunningham test of what D actually did foresee.
-Was only a criminal damage case, overruled Stephenson. Other areas still subject to
Cunningham definition until Lawrence 1982 and Seymour 1983 for reckless driving and
reckless manslaughter respectively.
-Slow transition back into Cunningham subjective test seen through DOO v K (a minor)
1990, div court applied Caldwell to assault occasioning abh. Court of appeal in Spratt
1991 declared that DPP v K was wrongly decided.
-Lord Mackay pointed out in Savage, DPP v Parmenter 1992 that objective
recklessness set too low a threshold of liability for such a crime as manslaughter and
restored the test based on gross negligence.
-HoL overruled Caldwell in G and another 2003 resorting the subjective test for
recklessness regarding criminal damage, the same as Caldwell.
-4 Reasons for resorting the subjective test.
-As a matter of principle, conviction of a serious crime should depend on
proof that D had a culpable state of mind. It was not clearly blameworthy to do
something involving a risk of injury or property damage if D genuinely did not perceive
that risk.
-Caldwell test was capable of leading to obvious unfairness. It was neither
moral nor just to convict any defendant, but least of all a child, on the strength of what
someone else would have appreciated.
-Significant judicial and academic criticism of Caldwell and the cases that
had followed it.
-The decision in Caldwell was a misinterpretation of Parliament’s intention.
Although the courts could leave it to Parliament to correct that misinterpretation,
because it was one that was “offensive to principle and was apt to cause injustice”, the
need for the courts to correct it was compelling.
-G and another involved an 11 and 12 year old setting newspaper alight, which
caught a wheelie bin on fire spreading to another and then to the shop and its adjoining
building. £1 mil in damages. CoA quashed their convictions as it was based on objective
“ordinary prudent adult” which is confirmed in both Cooper 2004 and Castle 2004.
-Professor Sir John Smith “The law would be better without all the unnecessary
complexity Caldwell introduced”.
Negligence
Document Summary
Recklessness was to be determined according to what the ordinary, prudent individual would have foreseen, as opposed to the cunningham test of what d actually did foresee. Was only a criminal damage case, overruled stephenson. Cunningham definition until lawrence 1982 and seymour 1983 for reckless driving and reckless manslaughter respectively. Slow transition back into cunningham subjective test seen through doo v k (a minor) 1990, div court applied caldwell to assault occasioning abh. 1991 declared that dpp v k was wrongly decided. Lord mackay pointed out in savage, dpp v parmenter 1992 that objective recklessness set too low a threshold of liability for such a crime as manslaughter and restored the test based on gross negligence. Hol overruled caldwell in g and another 2003 resorting the subjective test for recklessness regarding criminal damage, the same as caldwell. As a matter of principle, conviction of a serious crime should depend on proof that d had a culpable state of mind.
