R v Parker [1977] 1 WLR 600
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:03:22 UTC
A man was very angry and smashed a telephone belonging to the Post Office, thus breaking it. The question came down to whether he was reckless.
Parker (P) claimed the judge offered an objective test (it wasn’t really clear either way).
The CA claimed the judge’s assessment was fair and that the defendant knew what the consequences of his smashing the phone would be, rendering him reckless.
Appeal dismissed.
RELATED CASES
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
R v Cunningham
"Maliciousness" suggests an awareness of the potential outcome, which was absent in this case, leading to the overturning of his conviction. Nevertheless, the courts presume that the individual must...
R v Stephenson
Appellant charged with arson and he claimed that the court failed to show the objectivity of the test for recklessness. He had been sleeping in a haystack, was cold and set a fire of twigs inside the...
R v Campbell
A guy was going to rob a post office but decided against it and was leaving the crime scene when arrested. He was convicted of attempted robbery and appealed on the grounds that the judge had referre...
R v Venna
Recklessness alone can be sufficient mens rea (mental state) for an assault resulting in actual bodily harm, even if the defendant's reckless behavior causes injury to a police officer. It is appropr...
R v G and R
Two boys set fire to some papers and this ended up causing £2M damage. They were convicted at trial with the judge directing the jury (as he was bound to do after Caldwell ) that if the risk the boys...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.