WJEC A-Level Law 603-1978-1
Law Making in Wales and the UK
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Dispute Resolution
The Criminal Process and the Criminal Courts
Legal Personnel and the Judiciary
Access to Justice and Funding
Tort: Rules and Theory
Tort: Negligence
Tort: Occupiers' Liability
Tort: Remedies
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Key Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: RestrictionsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection and ReformHuman rights
Contract: Rules and TheoryContract
Contract: FormationContract
Contract: TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and DuressContract
Contract: DischargeContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of Liability
Mens rea: recklessness and negligence
- 3 things to know
- A2 Units 3 and 4
Overview
Recklessness in criminal law and negligence as a form of criminal fault.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
Distinguish recklessness from negligence.
Which offences use recklessness as a sufficient mens rea?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
Define recklessness in criminal law.
Model answer
Recklessness is the conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk: the defendant realises there is a risk of the prohibited result and goes on to take it anyway.
- 2
Which case laid down the subjective test of recklessness?
Model answer
R v Cunningham (1957), where the defendant tore a gas meter from a wall and the court held that maliciously required foresight of the particular kind of harm.
- 3
What did Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell (1982) add to the law?
Model answer
It created an objective form of recklessness, under which a defendant was reckless if the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person even though they never thought about it.
- 4
Why was Caldwell recklessness criticised?
Model answer
It convicted defendants who genuinely never saw the risk, including children and those of low intelligence, so it punished a failure to think rather than a choice to run a risk.
- 5
What did R v G (2003) decide?
Model answer
The House of Lords overruled Caldwell and restored the subjective test, holding that two boys aged 11 and 12 who set fire to newspapers under a wheelie bin were not reckless unless they themselves saw the risk.
- 6
Explain the significance of the ages of the defendants in R v G (2003).
Model answer
Two young boys had failed to appreciate a risk that would have been obvious to an adult, which exposed the injustice of judging a child against an adult standard.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Criminal Law: General Elements of Liability, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.