The Term Recklessness and How It is Currently Applied to Offences in the English Law System

The Term Recklessness and How It is Currently Applied to Offences in the English Law System

In everyday language, Recklessness means to take an unjustified risk.

However, its legal definition is not quite the same. To find out the

meaning of Recklessness, careful direction is to be given to the jury.

There are tow types of Recklessness, which were named after the cases

they were defined in: R v Cunningham (1957), which is the Subjective

version of Recklessness and MPC v Caldwell (1982), which is the

Objective version of Recklessness.

The dictionary meaning of reckless is to be careless, thoughtless,

incautious, heedless, unheeding, regardless, daredevil, madcap, wild,

irresponsible, unwise, indiscreet, mindless or negligent.

Recklessness is a form of Mens Rea (Guilty Mind).

Mens Rea is the Latin for 'guilty mind' and traditionally refers to

the state of mind of the person committing the crime. The required

Mens Rea varies depending on the offence, but there are three main

states of mind which separately or together can constitute the

necessary Mens Rea of a criminal offence.

When discussing Mens Rea, we often refer to the difference between

subjective (Cunningham) and objective (Caldwell) tests. Put simply, a

subjective test involves looking at what the actual defendant was

believed to have been thinking, whereas an objective test considers

what a reasonable person would have thought in the defendant's

position.

The Subjective test was used defined in the case of R v Cunningham

1957, which was the case where the defendant broke a gas meter to

steal money that was concealed inside it, the gas seeped out into the

h...

... middle of paper ...

...ld

for liability. The adoption of Caldwell recklessness means that a Mens

Rea generally considered less morally blameworthy than Cunningham

recklessness is being applied to some serious offences.

Additionally, there is an overlap with negligence. The Caldwell test

has blurred the distinction between recklessness and negligence.

Before Caldwell, there was an obvious difference: recklessness mean

knowingly taking a risk; negligence traditional meant unknowingly

taking a risk of which you should have been aware. Caldwell clearly

comes very close to negligence.

Furthermore, the lacuna. The case of R v Merrick has been criticised

as unrealistic. In practice, replacing electrical equipment often

creates a temporary danger, which cannot be avoided, yet technically

each time in criminal law the electrician is reckless.