Chief Constable Case Analysis-1

Introduction
For demeanor to be legally punished, there has to be a combination of criminal intent,

known as mens rea, and prohibited performance that results in a prohibited harm. The “
opposite of this rule asserts that criminal penalties should only be imposed on those who
intentionally damage the rights of others that the state protects, based on the concept that
criminal sanctions must not be imposed on those who act unintentionally and without the
requisite criminal intent The ingredients of reckless behaviour are the actor's (1) real
.”
awareness that the course of action he is about to embark on entails a considerable danger of
causing death or serious injury to another, and (2) the actor's disregard for the consequences.
and (2) a purposeful decision to risk the harm occurring. When these strict criteria are met,
irresponsible behaviour is legitimately subject to criminal penalties.1
Facts
Outside a shop, the defendant was hanging out with four of his buddies in a generally joyful
setting. At one point, one of the appellant's companions shoved him, causing him to flail his
limbs, while he did not touch anyone or anything. As a result, the conversation progressed
to the point where the defendant was forced to show off his martial arts skills to his buddies.
To display his level of control and martial arts prowess, he kicked a window in the direction
of a window. Since of this, the window had to be broken by the defendant because he had
no control over himself. Defendant was charged under s.1 of the Criminal Damage Act of
1971 because he was guilty. The parties agreed that the defendant had zero intention of
breaking the said window, but he was charged under the recklessness limb. The defence of
the defendant had been that, because of his excellent martial arts skills, he was satisfied that
no risk was there and thus was not careless.
Issue
Whether the defendant carried out acts under a mistaken belief as to risk objectively
reckless to the consequences of their actions and hemce guilty under s.1 CDA, 1971.
Research Methodology
The author has used secondary data and analysed the judgement from a legal standpoint
while relying on case notes, judgements and commentary.
1
Cp Williams, Law: General Part (3rd edn) p 59.
Analysis
The purpose or recklessness in regard to the destruction or damage of someone else's
property is the mens rea for an offence. Intention is given its ordinary meaning (R v
Maloney)2 because of this, it is necessary to determine whether or not they intended to do
harm to someone else's property when they carried out the act of reus. 3 If the prosecution is
unable to establish a direct intent, recklessness may be of determining value. In R v. G 4, the
Lords overruled the objective test given in R v. Caldwell 5, that the prosecution must prove
two things in order to convict a defendant of reckless damage: first, he or she must have
been aware of a danger at the time of their conduct that led to the actus resus; second, they
must have recognised the risk was unreasonable given the circumstances.
Act of taking an unjustifiable risk is referred to as recklessness in general. Over time, two
types of recklessness have been identified: Cunningham and Caldwell recklessness. R v
Cunningham6, in which it was found that a subjective test employed to evaluate recklessness
in terms of criminal damage, established an idea of recklessness. On appeal, the Court found
that malice does not in any way imply 'wickedness,' but instead that it necessitates (1) a
purpose to inflict a definite harm, or (2) recklessness about whether such harm might occur.
In the present case, recklessness indicates that said defendant knew the act would cause
injury yet continued to do it nevertheless.
Section 1(2)(b) states that it is with the aim or irresponsibility of risking the life of another -
No one's life must be in risk. Defendant must intend in lieu of endangering a life or be
reckless enough to endanger a life. 7 Planned or anticipated danger to life shall arise from the
damage, not from the damage itself.8
We appear to be locked in a rut about irresponsibility. The model guidance in Caldwell is

widely reviled, particularly in light of its application in instances such as Elliott v C and R
(Stephen Malcolm)9, the lords indicate no evidence of repentance, despite the fact that in
2
R v Maloney [1990] 1 WLR 1073
3
Amirthalingam, K. (2004). Caldwell Recklessness Is Dead, Long Live Mens Rea's Fecklessness. TheModern
Law Review Vol. 67, No. 3, 491-500
4
R v. G & R [2003] 3 WLR.
5
R v. Caldwell [1982] AC 341
6
R v Cunningham 2 QB 396 [1957]
7
R v Stephenson QB 695 [1979]
8
R V. COLES 1 CR R 157 (1995)
9
R v Stephen Malcolm 79 Cr App R 334 (1984).
both of the latter two cases, statements of displeasure came from a certain Divisional Court.
In this, Lord Roskill, outspoken supporter of the model direction, claimed that it applies "
unless a specific instance is determined by the Parliament to be otherwise," which, if
accepted, would overturn current choices that the course does not apply to malice-related
felonies, as it does to most other crimes against the person.10
In the case at hand, the court held that, said Appellant is not in immediate risk of losing his
liberty if an Order was issued since these were civil proceedings controlled by civil
evidence rules. The majority of the activities alleged in the complaint were not illegal in
character in and of themselves.11 As a result, the Justices issued the following statement on
the level of proof: Court stated at the outset that these procedures are preventative in nature
in order to safeguard the public. Parliament could have passed legislation requiring that the
criminal procedure be applied in certain cases, but it chose not to. Court did not believe a
criminal standard of proof should be applied. However, the repercussions of a breach of an
Order, which would have to be shown to a criminal standard in and of itself, are severe. As
a result, we agree that the level of proof in a civil action should be higher than the minimum
accepted in a criminal case and closer to the criminal standard'.12
Conclusion
By definition, mens rea is the accused's state of mind when they committed the actus reus of
the said crime; and the same cannot be the mental state of a hypothetical individual.
Defining actus reus is significantly easier than defining mens rea when addressing the
elements of a crime. The latin phrase of mens rea relates to the defendant's mind, whereas
the actus reus of the crime has a simple definition that refers to an act or omission. The only
exception to this is the doctrine of strict liability offences, wherein mens rea is not required
to be proved. The three basic categories of mens rea are categorised as intention, negligence,
and recklessness. Small risk not worth taking as there was no social utility attached to it. In
this instance of criminal damage, there is a circumstance that the property belongs to
another and the result that the property will be destroyed or damage as a result of what the
defendant does and will not be reasonably reckless, if there is no social utility.
10
Amirthalingam, K. (2004). Caldwell Recklessness Is Dead, Long Live Mens Rea's Fecklessness. TheModern
Law Review Vol. 67, No. 3, 491-500
11
Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset v Shimmen (1987) 84 Cr App R 7
12
Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset v Shimmen (1987) 84 Cr App R 7

Chief Constable Case Analysis-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chief Constable Case Analysis-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

For demeanor to be legally punished, there has to be a combination of criminal intent,

We appear to be locked in a rut about irresponsibility. The model guidance in Caldwell is

You might also like