The Case of Revision R v G and Another Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

The Case of Revision R v G and A nonher - Essay ExampleHowever, the House of Lords overruled, on the grounds that an element of mens rea was a requirement in all cases involving serious offenses. The boys were therefore not found guilty of arson, or the crime of causing damage by fire3. The former was separate as objective hardihood and the latter as personal recklessness and this had to be assessed by reference to the reasonable man. The case of Cunningham4 established conclusively that subjective recklessness involving offenses committed intentionally and recklessly will suffer the accused liable. But Caldwell imputed liability for objective recklessness as well, although Lord Edmund Davies noted a dissenting opinion on the objective recklessness of the defendant as follows a jury could not on those words alone, properly convict him of recklessness simply because they considered that the risk ought to have crossed his mind5 The House of Lords decision however overruled on the grounds that foresight or the ability to make an assessment of the consequences was deemed to be an essential part of recklessness as laid out under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act. The basis upon which the humiliate Courts decision was overruled was that when a judgment was made on the liability for objective recklessness without making any allowance for the youth of the defendants or for whether they had the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions, it is bound to be erroneous. The House of Lords held that since the boys did not maliciously and deliberately set out to cause damage to the property, neither did they envision the risk of the damages that could occur through the spread of the fire, they could not be deemed to be guilty of arson. A conviction for a crime should prove not merely an act of omission leading to a crime but also a culpable state of mind, in accordance with the principle of mens rea. Therefore a defendant who genuinely did not p erceive the risk cannot be exposed to serious punishment.