The Extent to Which the Decision of the House of Lords in Gemmell and Richards has Clarified the Meaning of the Concept of Recklessness in English Criminal Law The concept of ‘recklessness’ or being ‘reckless’ has been described as causing injury without intending to do so. But not every case of foresight amounts to recklessness as in order for a defendant to be reckless then the risk of the action they have taken must be an unreasonable one. A certain foresight of certainty must be taken into account in which, is the action in which the defendant partaken in one with a foreseeable outcome? But all depend on the circumstance as driving 30mph on a busy road may be reasonable while driving at 50mph may not be due to the increased risk of accidents and the more serious the injuries would be if they were to crash the car at a higher speed. Also another fact is if the risk is minimal or only and ‘outside chance’ then running the risk is more than likely going to be unobjectionable but even that slight risk is enough to be put forward as recklessness if the harm is serious enough and the act has no social value. But this has caused much confusion over the years do the need for foresight as it was said that in recklessness that while the defendant must foresee the possibility of doing the actus reus but he need not seek or be motivated to bring it about. Pre-1982 there was a understandable subjective test that the defendant was guilty if they thought about the risk and then carried on with their action and they were not guilty if you didn’t think about the risk. In Cunningham (1957) the defendant interfered with the coin-ope... ... middle of paper ... ...e human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society." And so if it is wrong to ignore these special characteristics of children in this context then also it is wrong to ignore them in an adult with learning difficulties. And so this will protect the said people from unjust convictions, unlike the Caldwell test which trapped them. This does not restore the correct interpretation of section 1 of the 1971 act however in which the meaning of recklessness involved foresight of consequences. And this subjective state of mind is conditional inferred "by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances”