Recklessness

Question 1

Cunningham

Answer 1

There is an unjustified risk (objective) and the defendant is aware of the risk (subjective) and took it anyway.

Only need to foresee the risk, no need to see that it is highly likely

Question 2

Recklessness in criminal damage

Answer 2

R v G - at the time of committing the AR, the accused was subjectively aware of the risk and in the circumstances known to him, it was objectively unreasonable for him to take that risk.

Question 3

Transferred malice

Answer 3

R v Latimer - s20 OAPA

R v Mitchell - manslaughter

Question 4

Must have MR for the crime charged

Answer 4

R v Pembilton

Question 5

Continuing act theory

Answer 5

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Question 6

The transaction theory (categorise the actions as a series of acts making up on transaction)

Answer 6

Thabo Meli
R v Church
R v Le Brun

Question 7

Causation theory

Answer 7

Le Brun

R v Masilela (SA)

Question 8

Where it is not clear which of the defendant’s acts was the AR, the defendant must have the MR for the relevant crime when he does each of the acts that could constitute the AR

Answer 8

AG Reg (No 4 of 1980) - death either caused by strangling or stabbing - must have MR when doing both

Question 9

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, even where it is impossible for him to know of the prohibition in question

Answer 9

R v Bailey

Question 10

Mistakes negating the MR

Answer 10

Mistake of fact (.e.g taking the wrong umbrella)

Mistake of civil law - R v Smith (believed panels he had installed belonged to him so no criminal damage)

If MR required is intention or recklessness, there is no need for the mistake to be reasonable.