Regina V. G and Another Case Brief

Case Title Regina v. G and other(a)(prenominal) (Appellants) (On petition form the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) Citation 2003 UKHL 50 Procedural memorial (PH) The plaintiff in errors were charged on 22nd August 2000 with appear uprightnessful excuse modify by discharge commercial premise and being intoxicating as to whether such property would be scathed. The appellants stood trial before Judge Maher in March 2001. The appellants case at trial was that they expected the fire to kill itself on the concrete.It was pass judgment that neither of them conceived that there was any gamble of the fire spreadhead. At the start of the trial submissions were read on the meaning of bear in mindlessness. The decide ruled that he was bound to direct the panel in accordance with R v Caldwell . The Judge then directed the control board on the three matters he listed. The jury was unable to come to a decision on the identical day yet returned on another day and convicte d the appellants. Upon receiving the verdict the judge adjourned the proceedings for a pre-sentence report.The judge made a one year supervision in the case of from each one appellant. Facts On the night of 21st -22nd August 2000, the appellants, then aged 11 and 12 respectively went camping without the permission of their parents, they entered the back kibibyte of the coop Shop in Newport Pagnell. They lighted some newspapers that they had found. Both suspects threw some lit newspaper under a large plastic wheelie-bin. The suspects left the yard before putting the fire to rest.As a result the newspapers caught fire to the showtime wheelie-bin which then spread to the other wheelie-bin then spread to the eave, guttering, fascia and the roof and payoffually spread to the adjoining buildings. The damages approximated to a sum of 1million Pounds Sterling. Issues 1. Did the defendant damage by fire the building and the commercial premises? 2. Would the fortune created by the de fendant been obvious to an ordinary, reasonable, bystander? 3. Had the defendant inclined any image to the possibility of there being a risk in doing what he did?Judgment The Appellants succeeded in having their conviction quashed. By the reasons given by schoolmaster Bingham of Cornhill, with the support of entitle Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. Rule(s) of Law 1. Did the defendant damage by fire the building and the commercial premises? The appellant did damage the building and commercial premises by fire. During the proceedings, the judge pointed out that there was no doubt in the appellants damaging the building and premises by fire. 2.Would the risk created by the defendant have been obvious to an ordinary, reasonable, bystander? It is accepted that the reasonable bystander is an adult with no particular expertise with the common familiarity and reasoning capabilities. The jury agreed that the reasonable bystander would have been a ble to image the possibility of the fire spreading. Thus the appellants were convicted under standing test . The jury was inclined to accept that intention could be shown by proof of reckless disregard of an act perceived by the reasonable man as a risk. 3.Had the defendant given any thought to the possibility of there being a risk in doing what he did? It was agreed on appeal that the boys did not foresee any risk of the fire spreading in the way it eventually did. Many leading academic writers on English criminal law have believe that the criminal law should punish people only for those consequences of their acts, which they foresaw at the relevant time. Supporting pedigree Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea translates to the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.It is a formative belief that conviction of serious crime should rely on inference not merely that the defendant caused an detrimental way out t o another but rather that his state of mind when so acting was blameworthy. Willingly handle an appreciated and unacceptable risk of causing a detrimental effect or a methodical and purposeful ignorant state of mind to such risk would also be considered blame worthy. In furrow it is not distinctively culpable to do something that encompasses the gamble of grievance to another in the event of one authentically not identifying the verbalize gamble.Did the judges direction transgress the decision of the jury? It can be debated that since R v Caldwell the case at hand precisely outlines that Lord Diplocks direction is capable of persuading evident unfairness. The trial judge admitted to the grief of his direction to the jury which transgressed the decision of the jury. The jury whitethorn have inferred that persons the same age of the appellants would have understood the risk involved however this was not their decision. However the jury thought it unfair to convict them.It is not c onsidered moral or just to convict a defendant s a result of what another may have understood if the defendant had no such understanding himself. Was the interpretation of recklessly wrong? In section 1 of the Act, it was shown that the interpretation of recklessly to have been misleading. Had the misapprehension not conflicted with any principle or had not intensified an injustice the misinterpretation would not have had any impact, however it resulted in the opposite.Thus it is vital for the correction of the misinterpretation of recklessly. Losing Argument Should the rule in R v Caldwell be modified? The modification would defy the principle that conviction depends on the mens rea of the defendant. If the principle was modified to accommodate children on the grounds of naivety it would be uncharacteristic if no modification was made to include the mentally handicapped on the grounds of their narrow ability of perception.Implementing modifications of this classification impart encourage contend and controversial debate with regard to the qualities and characteristics plausible for comparison. The implementation of this modification will replace one misinterpretation for another. Were the appellants reckless? A person is said to be reckless if knowing that there is a risk that an event may occur as a consequence of their conduct as defined by The Merriam Webster dictionary .A defendant is only considered to have acted recklessly by the advantage of their failure to give any thought to the risk or property damage that may have been patent had they given any thought to the matter. De bourneining if a risk would have been apparent to the defendant is very unpredictable. The tribunal of fact should not acknowledge the defendants proclamation that it never occurred to them that there was risk of property damage providing that the conditions, prospects, and evidence point that the thought process must have pass over their mind. Obiter Dicta The meaning of mal iciously It is understood by the court that use of the term maliciously requires proof of intension. Malice necessitates an authentic objective to do a precise kind of destruction. The court accepts that maliciously introduces consciousness that an act may have the consequence of causing substantial impairment to some other person despite if the impairment foreseen was reasonably minimal.