Ratio Decidendi
The test for recklessness in criminal damage is subjective: a person acts recklessly when they are aware of a risk and it is unreasonable to take it. The objective Caldwell test was overruled as it was unfair and could lead to unjust convictions.
Facts
Two boys aged 11 and 12 set fire to newspapers in a bin outside a shop. The fire spread and caused £1 million of damage. They were convicted of criminal damage being reckless as to whether life was endangered, applying the objective Caldwell test — the boys had not foreseen the risk.
Judgment Summary
The House of Lords allowed the appeal and overruled R v Caldwell [1982]. Lord Bingham held that a defendant cannot be convicted of a serious criminal offence on the basis that they should have foreseen a risk that they did not in fact foresee. Recklessness requires subjective awareness of risk.
Key Quotes
"It is not clearly blameworthy to do something involving a risk of injury to another if... one genuinely does not perceive the risk."
— Lord Bingham
Subsequent Treatment
Definitively overruled Caldwell recklessness. The subjective test now applies to all offences requiring recklessness.