The following Corporate Crime practice 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 themselves. The principal was established in the case of R v Cunningham and so this was called ‘Cunningham recklessness’.
The second type of recklessness was known as ‘Caldwell recklessness’ (from the case of R v Caldwell). 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.
In its decision in Re G, the House of Lords departed from the objective test of recklessness and its earlier decision in Caldwell. It held that foresight of consequences remained an essential ingredient of recklessness in the context of the offence of criminal damage. See further below: Recklessness and 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
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. 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
Defending a tort claim—general considerationsIn reality, many claims are ‘defended’ on the basis that the defendant either did not owe the claimant a duty, or there was no breach of duty or there was a break in the chain of causation.In each of those cases, the claimant has failed to establish that
When defendants are guilty, they have a choice to plead guilty or to put the prosecution to proof. When they plead guilty they may benefit from a reduction in their sentence as a result, see Practice Note: Credit for guilty plea. However, the Sentencing Council's overarching guidelines on reduction
What is a reserved judgment?A reserved judgment is a draft judgment that is circulated by the judge. At the end of the hearing the judge will usually state that judgment is being reserved. This is common practice in the High Court. The draft judgment will be provided to the parties’ legal
What is quia timet relief?Injunctions are generally awarded where a party has already suffered a wrong. For guidance on injunctions generally, see Practice Note: Injunctions—guiding principles. However, an injunction may be sought before a party's rights have been infringed on the basis that they
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.