Foundation of Criminal Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Foundation of Criminal Law - Essay Example31 (issued in 1970),that defined heedlessness as A person is reckless if, (a) knowing that there is a pretend of exposure that an event may result from his conduct or that a circumstances may exist, he carrys that risk, and (b) it is unreasonable for him to take it, having regard to the degree and nature of the risk which he knows to be present. With this definition, Lord Edmund-Davies explains that recklessness entails having a foresight of the outcome or its consequences, along with the objective conception of the reasonableness of the risk taken.3 Thus, Metcalfe and Ashworth differentiate Lord Edmund-Davies discussion with that of Lord Diplocks speech saying that it lacked the supporting statutory interpretation.4 Metcalfe and Ashworth also pointed out the considerations made by the House of Lords in the R v G case. Lord Bingham stated that the Caldwell decision misconstrued the statute, particularly Section 1(1) of the 1971 Act5 and went against the rule requiring that there be a inherent mens rea in case of serious crime conviction, leading to unfair results that might be neither moral nor just.6 Lord Steyn on the other hand, cerebrate on the injustice of using Caldwell decision to children, citing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.7 The commentary also discussed the meaning of recklessness as ascribed by the House of Lords in the R v G decision. Lord Bingham adopted the definition cited in the draft wicked code of 1989 wherein a person is said to act recklessly if with compliments to (i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist (ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.8 Metcalfe and Ashworth explains that from this definition, it can be deduced that any awareness of any degree of risk satisfies the definition, and that the judgment of the unreasonableness ofa risk (w hen that issue is contested) is for the tribunal of fact.9 With this, they foresee that this same definition may be used uniformly throughout the criminal law, except for judges who would substitute the term reckless with gross negligence necessary in a manslaughter conviction.10 Finally, Metcalfe and Ashworth discusses the question of legal policy as regards the obligation of children, taking into consideration the differing standards applicable to children and mentally disordered people, from that of adults who are of sound mind and hence, should have been aware of the need to take care. In this case, they opined that the courts still draw strict liability for offences that may carry prison sentences of some length and state that the legislature has emphasized on the objective standards especially in the versed Offences Act 2003, in that they introduced the test of absence of reasonable belief in consent to replace the previous recklessness requirement.11 With this discussion o f Metcalfe and Ashworth, it raised much questions than answers in definitely identifying the elements to be considered in criminal liabilities involving recklessness. Their discussion was not able to persuasively argue that indeed a different standard should be applied especially those concerning children, or having a subjective approach to the circumstance of a child or person at the time the act committed, quite a than seeing a circumstance from an objective point of