R v G [2004]


  • G (Two boys, aged 11 and 12), set fire to newspapers, then left them to burn out near a rubbish bin, which was situated next to a supermarket
  • The newspapers did not burn out, but set fire to the bin
  • The bin fire spread to the supermarket, causing £1 million in damage


  • Were the two boys guilty of recklessly causing criminal damage?


  • No


  • The Caldwell recklessness test is incorrect
  • Lord Bingham – recklessness requires a subjective test, buy generic xanax cheap whereby there must be a risk which the defendant is aware of, and that risk must not be reasonable to take
  • The defendants were unaware of the risk, therefore were not recklessness and were not guilty of causing criminal damage
  • Lord Bingham justified the approach with a ‘moral blameworthiness’ principle, whereby stupidity was not enough for a conviction
  • This test for recklessness is universally applicable and not limited to criminal damage
RELATED CASE  R v G [2009]

Posted in Criminal Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 31st March 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy