Uk Recklessness Essay

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

Risk is defined by the probability of injury, harm, loss or danger. We all take risks every day, and don’t even think about implications.

Anybody who takes a full role in society takes risks: crossing the road, using a bus, driving a car, and talking to people they do not know. Risk may be physical (injury and accident), emotional (humiliation, sense of failure), or mental (stress).

This reckless driving--113 m.p.h--was a surprise and frustration for the author because his son was reasonable, measured, and mostly repentant after the incident; his son’s only qualm was that he shouldn’t have been cited for reckless driving because he was incredibly focused and thoughtful about where and when he was speeding. This odd paradox was frustrating to the author because he simply couldn’t understand his son’s thinking.

Anthony Marston’s reckless drinking causes him to die of potassium cyanide poisoning. When he drank it was “Too quickly, perhaps. He choked” (Christie 74). This goes to show that Anthony should be more careful about what he does. He also drives extremely reckless. He accelerates very quickly as he “let in the clutch with a roar and leapt down the narrow street” (Christie 14). He could have easily hit an unexpecting car on the other side of the road.

It is to be submitted that the proposal of the Law Commission in the 2013 Discussion Paper presents on balance the most fitted approach to non-responsibility defences, since it eradicates the current illogical distinction between ‘insanity’ and ‘automatism’. Under this proposal, the ‘M’Naghten rule’ should be abolished and replaced by a new non-responsibility defence relevant to those cases of ‘total lack of criminal capacity resulting from a recognised medical condition (provided the other criteria of the defence are met) without limiting it to mental disorders’, assuming no culpable fault. The pertinent criminal capacities in this defence are the abilities to make a rational judgment, to comprehend the wrongfulness of a conduct and to have control of one’s body. This general defence would lead to the special verdict ‘not criminally responsible by reason of a recognized medical condition’ and disposal powers may attach. Under the ‘recognised medical condition defence’ the accused would only have an evidential burden and it would be for the prosecution to disprove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is not criminally liable by reason of a recognised medical condition. Regarding automatism, the common law defence would be abolished and the reformed defence would be

Last of all, Cost of avoiding harm needs to be taken into account. The argument that a danger was too costly to eliminate is not a legitimate argument. However courts do recognise a balance between the risk and the cost of eliminating it. If the risk is remote and the precautions needed to be taken are very expensive, the defendants lack of action by not doing anything may be justified. The greater the risk is and the more likely it is, the consideration is given towards the cost of the eliminating measures which the defendants may have taken to safeguard. The decision in these circumstances relies on whether the courts decide that the defendants had acted reasonable in the given

The court deciphering between criminal negligence and recklessness. Criminal negligence being a person failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

Weigh up the risk: a risk is the likelihood that a hazard will cause harm

The cutting of brake cables by Willow may be treated as recklessness. In Cunningham , the court held that maliciousness means

* There are three (3) schools of thought regarding risk. The first considers the positive and negative aspects of risk, but sees them as separate. The second group believes that there are benefits from treating threats and opportunities together, while the third school does not label uncertainties, but addresses uncertainty as part of “doing the job.” Argue the value of having a risk strategy despite the cost associated with it. Include an example to support

This essay will briefly discuss the meaning of criminal recklessness within the criminal law and the types of recklessness, and see what the current law states today. The essay will examine the advantages and disadvantages of using the subjective test (which is currently known today as Cunningham recklessness) regarding criminal recklessness which was used in the case of Gemmell and Richards (2003) 3 WLR 1060.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

The defendant charged with “maliciously” administering a noxious thing. The appeals court calls “maliciously” as intentionally. Defendant is rash, she foreknow harm and take action disregard it (subjective). Besides, the defendant is negligence; reasonable person should know there is harm (objective). Trial court said Cunningham had mens rea mean it is not consider as murdered but only just bad mental for burglary.(mens rea and crime must correspond)

The Term Recklessness and How It is Currently Applied to Offences in the English Law System