Criminal Liability and Recklessness in Law

The assignment explores the concept of criminal liability and recklessness in law, using real-life examples and case studies to illustrate key points. It discusses the importance of causation and mens rea (guilty mind) in determining criminal liability, and examines the role of recklessness in various legal contexts. The assignment also references relevant laws and court cases, providing a comprehensive overview of this complex topic.

Law project

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 1.........................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 2.........................................................................................................................2
QUESTION 3.........................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Criminal law is found in every nation and each country have different system to
determine seriousness of offense and to the assign penalty for such criminal offenses. UK also
have a separate law for criminal offenses. In the present report the criminal act done by Colin
founder of Millennium Awake commune is being assessed. For this the causation given by Colin
is checked whether his contention is valid to be held or not. Nature of offense committed by
Colin is determined along with judgment given in case of R V G and another, 2003 the
developments of the treat of recklessness is being discussed.
MAIN BODY
QUESTION 1
Fact: Colin has started a commune with his wife and five children, in order to expand the
commune he married again. With his dictatorship first wife wants to leave the commune with her
children. Colin do not agree with this ides and to teach her a lesson set the house in which they
lived on fire and planted all the evidence against her first wife. The fire get escalated due to wind
and fie brigade could not reach on time to set off the fire and this lead to death of 4 children from
first wife. Upon investigation it was found out that Colin started fire but he contented that would
fire brigade have reached on time the fire would have been stooped and lives were saved.
Issue: determination of the causation in this offence and whether Colin will succeed in his
defence.
Rule:
Causation in criminal liability:
This can be defined as determination and enquiring whether the conduct of the offerer
caused harm or damage (Causation in criminal liability, 2018). In order to establish a crime
causation must be proved on behalf of offender. In criminal liability causation can be divided
into factual and legal.
Factual causation: this can be proved by applying the word “but for”test. In this the but
for is asked to the defender for his/her action, results would have occurred (Almond, 2015). In
case the answer comes to yes there is no applicability of factual causation and the defender
would be automatically by sufficed from establishment of the causation.
Legal causation: this must result in establishment of culpable mind of the offender.
Here no need to prove that defendant was only the cause for the action. In this an occurrence of
1

a harm or damage through the guilty mind is enough for causation (Ginther and et.al., 2014). The
action of defendant need not be the exclusive cause of the harm done, but it must be more than
minimal. There must be novus actus interveniens, this means different test are applied to decide
that chain of causation has been broken. The chain can be broken by action of their party, or by
offender himself.
Application: in the present case Colin owed ha culpable mind and started a fire with
criminal approach so that her wife can not leave with her children. Here legal causation is
applicable as Colin has a criminal mind set also he planted evidences against his wife in her
room and set the house on fire. His action was not sole reason for the cause of death other
factors were wind and late arrival of fire brigade. There was no intervention the establishment of
chain of causation.
Conclusion: for this case it can be concluded that Colin can not defend himself from
offence committed by ho and can not pass the blame on the late arrival of fire brigade. He is a
criminal offerer under legal causation.
QUESTION 2
Fact: in order to set up her wife as criminal Colin set his house on fire with planting all
evidence against her wife but the fire got widespread due to heavy wind flow and fire brigade
can not reach on them this lead to death of 4 children due to fire of Colin and hie first wife.
Issue: Determination of offence and prosecution that can be charged on Colin?
Rule:
Manslaughter: this can be defined ass less culpable than murder. This is an unlawful
killing that does not involve intention to cause a harm or serious damages to kill, recklessness
regarding life. This can be understood as circumstances not amounting to murder (Kessler
Ferzan, K., 2015). This can be bifurcated into two parts: Voluntary and Involuntary. Under
involuntary manslaughter the defendant is responsible for the murder for which he has on clear
motive for the act. He intention in this offence can be defined as an intentional unlawful act
which is objectively risky and resulted in death.
There are three types of criminal offences in UK law:
1. Summary offences: these are offences of less serious nature. In this maximum penalty
can extent up to $55000 and jail of six months. In case thee is a breach of probation
2

then penalty can be extended. This includes minor assaults resulting in minor injury
which is least serious from assault in indictable only offence.
2. Indictable only offense: these are offenses of serious nature and that interludes theft
over $5000, breaking and entering, aggravated sexual assault and murder, manslaughter,
rape and robbery (Meier, J. S., 2016). For these type offenses maximum penalties are life
imprisonment.
3. Hybrid offenses: these are the offenses that can be determined both either as summary
or indictable. The crown counsel makes the decision about how to handle the offense and
to determine in which category it must be placed in.
Prosecution:
1. Prison sentence- 2 to 120 years
2. Suspended term of imprisonment (this can be defined as imprisonments is suspended for
up to 2 years given that offender has to comply with all 12 conditions prescribed by
court.
3. Community services.
Application:as per above rules ti can be said that Colin performed an activity which was
intentionally unlawful and resulted in death, so this is an act offense that can be defined under
involuntary manslaughter as he does not have an intention kill his own children but his act lead
to the same (What is the sentence for manslaughter in the UK & how many years could you face
in prison?, 2018). He is liable to be prosecuted under indictable only offense.
Conclusion: for the case of Colin this can be concluded that with no int ion to kill he
indulged himself in an unlawful full act which lead to death of his 4 children, so this is
involuntary manslaughter falling under indictable only offense and the court on its discretion can
prosecute him. Here, it is advised that he can be given be charged to do community services or
can be given suspended term of imprisonment.
QUESTION 3
Law related with test for recklessness:
Case: Regina v. G and another
This was a case related with the two plaintiffs aged 11 and 12. they went to a camping for a
night along without their parents. They lit newspaper which they found in the vicinity of a shop
and then threw it under a Wheelie bin (Regina v. G and another, 2018). After this they went
3

away without putting the fire off thinking that it would automatically burn out. In fact the fire
caught up to wheelies bin and then spread to nearby shop and it caused a loss of over £11
million.
In this case it was held that the claim of the defendant was set asides and decision passed in
MPC V caldwell(1982) was overruler. In this case the test of reckless was restated.
The test for recklessness for criminal damages is set as:
A person act recklessly as per meaning of section 1 of the criminal damages act 1971, as:
 there exist circumstances where person committing crimes is aware of the existence of
the risk to that it might exist.
 A result when he/she is wares of the risk that it will occur.
And, under those circumstances he/she would have known the risk ans it is unrestorable to
take it.
This can be stated that in this with deciding of this case new laws for recklessness was
established as:
A person will be charged for an offence under recklessness when he /she is aware of the risk
associated with his/her action along with the fact that a result in terms of harm and damage will
occur due to their action of recklessness (Robinson, P. H., 2017). Another thing which was
determined that would the person have known the risk he/she would have not undertaken such
act in existing circumstances.
SUBJECTIVE TEST:
The mens rea of recklessness:
generally reckless can be defines as tasking unjustified risk. In criminal law it can be defied as
application of subjective or objective test for determination of presence of recklessness. In case
of R V G for determination of recklessness subjective test was applied as this involved criminal
damages. This gave rise to Cunningham recklessness which asks question that: that the accused
foresee the harm or risk that occurred or might occur from his/her action and continued
regardless of the knowing the risk.
Criminal damages:
The mens rea of criminal damages means intentional or recklessness of a person as to
destroy or damage the property of another person. Intention means defendant believes that
4

property being their own property and they are not liable for the act even though it a mistake in
eyers of law.
OBJECTIVE TEST
Booth v Crown ProSsecution Service [2006] EWHC 192
This was a case related to determination of recklessness. The appellant was drinking and
smoking cannabises. He was tipsy but was no completive unaware of the fact what was going
around him. He saw some on the opposite side of the road and ran toward them in this action he
was cased with as car and caused damages of 517 (Stark, F., 2016). charges of criminal
damages were made against him. An objective test to recklessness had been applied by
magistrates as it was found that the damage caused by his act was "an obviously foreseeable
consequence".
In this case court upheld the criminal damages against the offender. The magistrate
contented that he was aware of the risk of collision includes on only personal injury but also
damage to the property. The use of the word would have appreciated was unfortunate, the case
was solved with the magistrate stating that it was clearly found out that appellant did appreciate
the risk. This means he was not unaware of the risk involved with the action taken by him. had
applied.
This can be stated for the point of recklessness that subjective test is more challenging
and expensive to prepare, administrate and eventuate correctly, but this can be more valid and
accurate when determining recklessness.
This can be stated that the decision in case of R V G got an authenticity with doctrine of
judicial precedent and on such law has been formed in this regard. The accurate subjective test
was applied for determination of recklessness. The law have not clear and settled meaning of
subjective and objective test to determine recklessness in a law suit.
With the finalisation of above mentioned case this was established the recklessness can
be determined if a person have foreseen the harm and damage or risk involved in his/act that
means they had an objective to do that and are charged under criminal offence for criminal
damages. If the person was unable to determined the risk involved ten he can not be held libel as
an offender under provision of recklessness.
5

CONCLUSION
From the above report it can be concluded that Colin can not present his defence with non
existence of the causation. In his case legal causation was present as he has a criminal mind set
when he set the house on fire in order to set up his wife for such offence. He was chargeable
under legal causation of criminal liability.
Another fact that was established with finalisation of this report is that test for
recklessness was redefined with passing of decision under that case of R V G in 2003. it was
stated that for commencement of recklessness criminal law the meas rea and culpable mind is
essential and the person committing a criminal act must be aware of the risk involved with
his/her act.
6

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Almond, P., 2015. Political culture and corporate homicide liability in the UK and Europe. The
Routledge Handbook of White-Collar and Corporate Crime in Europe. p.363.
Ginther, M. R and et.al., 2014. The language of mens rea. Vand. L. Rev. 67. p.1327.
Joyce, S., 2017. A short history of industrial manslaughter prosecutions. Precedent (Sydney,
NSW). (142). p.46.
Kessler Ferzan, K., 2015. On Jeffrie Murphy’s “Involuntary Acts and Criminal
Liability”. Ethics. 125(4). pp.1119-1122.
Meier, J. S., 2016. Brief of the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project,
Aequitas: The Prosecutors' Resource on Violence Against Women, & Futures Without
Violence as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Voisine v. United States, No. 14-
10154 (US Jan. 26, 2016).
Robinson, P. H., 2017. A Functional Analysis of Criminal Law. In The Structure and Limits of
Criminal Law. (pp. 175-232). Routledge.
Stark, F., 2016. Culpable Carelessness: Recklessness and Negligence in the Criminal Law.
Cambridge University Press.
Online
What is the sentence for manslaughter in the UK & how many years could you face in prison?
2018. [Online]. Available through :<https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-is-the-
sentence-for-manslaughter-how-many-years-could-you-face-in-prison/>.
Causation in criminal liability. 2018. [Online]. Available through :<http://e-
lawresources.co.uk/Causation-in-criminal-liability.php>.
Regina v. G and another . 2018. [Online]. Available through
:<http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/50.html>.
7