판결 이유
A person acts recklessly within the meaning of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 when they are aware of a risk that exists or will exist, or are aware of a risk that a result will occur, and it is in the circumstances known to them unreasonable to take that risk. The objective test of recklessness from R v Caldwell [1982] was departed from and overruled.
사실관계
Two boys aged 11 and 12 set fire to newspapers in a wheelie bin in the back yard of a shop. The fire spread to the shop, causing approximately £1 million of damage. They were charged with arson under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The boys said they expected the fire to burn itself out and did not appreciate the risk of the fire spreading.
판결 요약
The House of Lords unanimously overruled R v Caldwell [1982] and restored the subjective test for recklessness. Lord Bingham held that a person is reckless for the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 when they are aware of a risk and unreasonably take it. The objective Caldwell test — which held that a person was reckless if an obvious risk would have been apparent to a reasonable person — was unjust because it could convict a defendant who genuinely did not perceive any risk, including children and persons with limited understanding. The boys' convictions were quashed.
주요 인용문
"It is neither moral nor just to convict a defendant (least of all a child) on the strength of what someone else would have apprehended if the defendant himself had no such apprehension."
— Lord Bingham
후속 처리
Now the definitive authority on recklessness in criminal law. The subjective test applies to offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and is applied more broadly across criminal law.