R v G [2003]

1. Facts:

• Two young boys accidentally set fire to a supermarket, causing significant damage.

• Neither of the boys intended to cause damage nor were they reckless regarding the risk of damage.

2. Outcome:

• The House of Lords (HoL) overturned the previous conviction, ruling the boys not guilty.

• The decision overruled the Caldwell standard, which had held defendants liable for recklessness based on a failure to foresee obvious risks.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Revised Recklessness Standard: The ruling introduced a new test for recklessness, focusing on whether the defendant actually perceived the risk, rather than whether a reasonable person would have.

• Lord Bingham’s Rationale: Lord Bingham emphasised that individuals should not be blamed for risks they do not genuinely perceive, aligning legal recklessness more closely with subjective awareness of risk.

• Legal Shift: This decision marked a significant shift in the approach to recklessness, moving away from the Caldwell test and fostering a more subjective understanding of criminal liability.