判决理由
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').
事实
Caldwell, a former hotel employee, got drunk and set fire to the hotel while guests were sleeping.
判决摘要
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.
关键引述
"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
后续处理
Overruled by R v G [2003] which restored the subjective (Cunningham) test for recklessness.