R v Caldwell

Ratio Decidendi

Hechos

Caldwell, a former employee of a hotel who bore a grudge against its owner, got very drunk and set fire to the hotel, which was occupied by guests at the time; the fire was discovered and put out before serious harm was done. He was charged with arson — both with intending or being reckless as to endangering life, and with the basic offence of criminal damage. He said that, because of his intoxication, it had not occurred to him that he might endanger the lives of people in the hotel.

Resumen de la sentencia

The House of Lords, by a majority, upheld Caldwell's conviction and, in a speech by Lord Diplock, gave 'recklessness' in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 a broad, partly objective meaning. A person was reckless under that Act if he did an act that in fact created an obvious risk of the prohibited harm and, when he did it, either had not given any thought to the possibility of there being such a risk, or had recognised some risk and nonetheless gone on to take it. This meant a defendant could be reckless even though the risk never crossed his mind, provided it would have been obvious to an ordinary prudent person; and Lord Diplock held that voluntary intoxication was no answer to a charge requiring only this form of recklessness. 'Caldwell recklessness' was heavily criticised for capturing defendants — including the young and those incapable of appreciating the risk — who were not subjectively at fault, and it was overruled by the House of Lords in R v G, which restored the subjective (Cunningham) test.

Citas clave

Tratamiento posterior