Regina V. G and Another Case Brief
Citation:  UKHL 50
Procedural History (PH):
The appellants were charged on 22nd August 2000; without lawful excuse damaged by fire; commercial premises and being reckless as to whether such property would be damaged. The appellants stood trial before Judge Maher in March 2001. The appellants’ case at trial was that they expected the fire to extinguish itself on the concrete. It was accepted that neither of them conceived that there was any risk of the fire spreading. At the start of the trial submissions were made on the meaning of “recklessness”. The judge ruled that he was bound to direct the jury in accordance with R v …show more content…
Did the judge’s direction transgress the decision of the jury?
It can be debated that since R v Caldwell the case at hand precisely outlines that Lord Diplock’s direction is capable of persuading evident unfairness. The trial judge admitted to the regret of his direction to the jury which transgressed the decision of the jury. The jury may 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 considered 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