Facts
- Caldwell set fire to a hotel while intoxicated, causing criminal damage and endangering life
Issue
- Did Caldwell intend, or was Caldwell reckless as to the criminal damage and endangering life
Decision
- Yes (but case now overruled, likely reversing decision on facts)
Reasoning
- No intent
- Recklessness is (was) an objective test, satisfied if the reasonable person would have seen the risk to be obvious
- The risk was obvious to a reasonable (non-intoxicated) person; conviction upheld
- This case, and the test for recklessness has now been overruled by R v G [2004]
