||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 289 (Oct)
||Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Judge LJ, Moses and Royce JJ
||Charles Judge (instructed by the Registrar for Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
||Ann Evans (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
||21 October 2004
Criminal law - Arson - Damage to property - Recklessness as to whether life would be endangered - Test for determining recklessness - Correctness of trial judge's direction.
In directions to a jury in respect of arson being reckless as to whether life would be endangered, an objective test for recklessness was no longer appropriate. The question should have been whether the defendant had acted recklessly with respect to: a circumstance when he was aware of a risk that had or would have existed; or a result when he was aware of a risk that it would occur, and it was in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary