Booth v Crown Prosecution Service

For recklessness under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the defendant must have been aware of a risk of damage to property and, in the circumstances known to him, it must have been unreasonable to take that risk. A finding that the defendant deliberately closed his mind to a risk is compatible with the subjective test, provided the court has first found that he was aware of it. An appellate court should read a magistrates’ case stated fairly and as a whole, rather than subjecting isolated wording to overcritical textual analysis.

The claimant was convicted at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court of recklessly causing criminal damage after running into the path of a car, causing damage to its bonnet. The magistrates found that he knew of the risks associated with running into the road, deliberately disregarded them, and appreciated the risk to property.

On an appeal by way of case stated, the claimant argued that the magistrates had applied the former objective test of recklessness associated with R v Caldwell, rather than the subjective test stated in R v G. The central issue was whether the magistrates’ findings and wording demonstrated an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates had applied the correct subjective test of recklessness and were entitled to convict.
2. The applicable test, under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, was whether the defendant was aware of a risk of damage to property and whether, in the circumstances known to him, it was unreasonable to take that risk. The magistrates expressly found that the claimant was aware of the risks associated with running into the road, including the risk of collision and damage to property.
3. The fact that the magistrates also found that the claimant deliberately closed his mind to the risk did not revive the former objective approach. Once actual awareness of the risk had been found, deliberate disregard of it was consistent with the subjective test. The court relied on the reasoning in R v G, including the observation that closing one’s mind to a risk presupposes awareness of it.
4. The magistrates were entitled to infer that awareness of the risk of collision included awareness of the risk of damage to the vehicle. Their factual findings were plainly open to them on the evidence, including the claimant’s conduct, the condition of the road, and the absence of blame on the driver.
5. The differing expressions “would have appreciated” and “was aware” did not establish an error of law. The case stated had to be read as a whole. Although consistent terminology would have been preferable, the court rejected an overcritical textual analysis because the magistrates’ operative findings made their reasoning clear.

• Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant of criminal damage under section 1(1) and (4) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by way of case stated, dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.