판결 이유
Recklessness for criminal damage included objective situations where the defendant either recognised a risk and unreasonably took it, or failed to give any thought to an obvious risk ('Caldwell recklessness').
사실관계
Caldwell, a former hotel employee, got drunk and set fire to the hotel while guests were sleeping.
판결 요약
Lord Diplock held that recklessness in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 covered both subjective awareness and failure to consider an obvious risk. This objective approach was controversial.
주요 인용문
"A person is reckless if he does an act which creates an obvious risk and when he does the act he either has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or has recognised that there was some risk involved and has nonetheless gone on to do it."
— Lord Diplock
후속 처리
Overruled by R v G [2003] which restored the subjective (Cunningham) test for recklessness.