Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
If you would like to view other samples of the academic work produced by our writers, please click here.
R v Caldwell  1 All ER 961
HOUSE OF LORDS
LORD WILBERFORCE, LORD DIPLOCK, LORD EDMUND-DAVIES, LORD KEITH OF KINKEL
AND LORD ROSKILL 10, 11 DECEMBER 1980, 19 MARCH 1981
The respondent had done some work for the owner of a hotel as the
result of which he had a quarrel with the owner, got drunk and set fire
to the hotel in revenge.
The fire was discovered and put out before any
serious damage was caused and none of the ten guests in the hotel at the
time was injured. The respondent was indicted on two counts of arson
under s 1(1) and (2)a of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
At his trial he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of intentionally or
recklessly destroying or damaging the property of another, contrary to s
1(1), but pleaded not guilty to the more serious charge under s 1(2) of
damaging property with intent to endanger life or being reckless whether
life would be endangered.
He claimed that he was so drunk at the time
that the thought that he might be endangering the lives of the people in
the hotel had never crossed his mind. The trial judge directed the jury
that drunkenness was not a defence to a charge under s 1(2) and he was
On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the
ground that the mental element of intention or recklessness in regard to
endangering life referred to in s 1(2)(b) was a matter of
specific intent going beyond the actus reus and therefore had to be
established as a separate ingredient of the offence, and drunkenness
could accordingly be a good defence.
The Crown appealed to the House of
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please: