판결 이유
Recklessness in criminal damage requires subjective awareness of the risk. The objective Caldwell test for recklessness was overruled.
사실관계
Two boys aged 11 and 12 set fire to newspapers in a wheelie bin behind a shop. The fire spread to the shop and caused £1 million damage. They were convicted of criminal damage on the basis of objective Caldwell recklessness, despite not foreseeing the risk.
판결 요약
The House of Lords overruled Caldwell and held that a person acts recklessly only if they are aware of a risk and unreasonably take that risk. Subjective recklessness (awareness of risk) replaced the objective Caldwell test.
주요 인용문
"It is not clearly blameworthy to do something involving a risk of injury to another if one genuinely does not perceive the risk. Such a person may fairly be accused of stupidity or lack of imagination, but neither of those failings should expose him to conviction of serious crime or the risk of punishment."
— Lord Bingham
후속 처리
Definitive authority restoring subjective recklessness as the test for criminal damage and other offences previously governed by Caldwell.