WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 sample

158 Criminal Law R v G and another (2003) In this case, two boys aged 11 and 12 set fire to newspapers in a wheelie bin outside a shop. The fire spread to the shop and other buildings, causing significant damage. They were convicted of arson as, at the time, arson required an objective standard of recklessness (Caldwell recklessness) and the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person, even if it was not to the young boys. On appeal, it was decided that the objective standard was not appropriate and the subjective characteristics of the boys such as their age and immaturity should be considered by the courts. Caldwell objective recklessness was overruled and replaced with subjective recklessness. KEY CASE R v Pagett (1983) An armed defendant was trying to resist arrest and held his girlfriend in front of him as a human shield. He shot at the police and they shot back, killing the girlfriend. It was held that ‘but for’ his action of holding her as a human shield, she would not have died as and when she did. This was despite the fact it was not him who shot her. KEY CASE Starting a fire that could harm people is classed as recklessness Recklessness This type of mens rea concerns the taking of an unjustified risk. Following the case of R v G and another (2003) , it is now almost purely a subjective concept, so that the prosecution must prove that the defendant realised they were taking a risk. The first use of the phrase ‘subjective recklessness’ was in the Cunningham (1957) case and is sometimes referred to as Cunningham recklessness , where the court asks the question: ‘Was the risk in the defendant’s mind at the time the crime was committed?’ Negligence Negligence consists of falling below the standard of the ordinary reasonable person. The test is objective and has traditionally been associated with civil law. It now has some relevance in criminal law with gross negligence manslaughter . Causation Causation relates to the causal relationship between conduct and result and is an important aspect of the actus reus of an offence. There needs to be an unbroken and direct chain of causation between the defendant’s act and the consequences of that act. There must not be a novus actus interveniens that breaks the chain of causation, or there will be no criminal liability for the resulting consequence. There are two types of causation: factual and legal . Factual causation This is tested using the ‘but for’ test and the de minimis rule. 1. The ‘but for’ test This test asks ‘but for’ the conduct of the defendant, would the victim have died as and when they did? If the answer is no then the defendant will be liable for the death. R v White (1910) White poisoned his mother but she died of a heart attack before the poison had a chance to take effect. He was not liable for her death. Explore the cases of Cunningham (1957) and Caldwell (1982) . What were the facts of the case and what did they rule in relation to negligence? STRETCH AND CHALLENGE Remember that, occasionally, some subjective characteristics of the defendant can be considered with an objective test (such as age and gender) that may have an effect on the way they reacted. GRADE BOOST novus actus interveniens: an intervening act that is so independent of the original act of the defendant that it succeeds in breaking the chain of causation. There may be liability for the initial act. KEY TERMINOLOGY 2. The de minimis rule De minimis means insignificant, minute or trifling. This test requires that the original injury caused by the defendant’s action must be more than a minimal cause of death. Pagett (1983) also illustrates this.