The following Corporate Crime guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
In respect of some statutory offences and common law crimes the prosecution are required to prove a mental element of recklessness on the part of the defendant.
Recklessness means unjustified risk taking on the part of the accused.
Prior to the House of Lords decision in Re G there were two types of recklessness, depending on the substantive offence charged. The first type of recklessness was subjective recklessness, that is an accused must have foreseen the risk himself. The principal was established in the case of R v Cunningham.
The second type of recklessness was known as Caldwell recklessness. This required an objective test, that is whether the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person, irrespective of whether the accused foresaw the risk.
The objective test of recklessness was abolished following the House of Lords decision in Re G.
Although the decision in Re G was in the context of criminal damage, it is clear from the case law that for offences that can be committed recklessly the test will be subjective. The Cunningham test of recklessness will therefore continue to apply.
The Cunningham approach to recklessness is now referred to as standard recklessness. Cunningham recklessness requires that the accused foresees the consequences of his actions as being probable or even possible and
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234