So how does one go about interpreting exactly what may be a reckless act? To begin with, it is a type of mens rea for criminal liability. According to Kevin Boone, judges have had to rely on “explanations in important case reports” to work out what may amount to recklessness. This means going through potentially huge amounts of recklessness cases to see if the case in question could fall within the confines set out there. Realising this is challenging, the Law Commission have sought to rectify the situation, by releasing several working papers on the issue. One of them gives the following explanation:

“a person acts recklessly [if] he is aware of a risk that…exists or will exist [or] …when he is aware of risk that…will occur and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.”

Even this in itself is dubious, as it can be difficult to establish the mindset of the

Some topics in this essay:
Divisional Court, House Lords, Law Commission, Damage Property, Lord Diplock, Appeal Court, Subjective Cunningham, Russian Roulette, Mischief Rules, Essentially Reid, law recklessness, actus reus, recklessness problematic, law commission, risk obvious, act reckless, criminal law, judicial interpretation, strict definition, offences damage property, divisional court, difficult draw line, law recklessness problematic, caldwell objective test, law commission sought,