R V Caldwell Case Summary

R v Caldwell [1981] 1 All ER 961
James Caldwell had grievance against the owner of the hotel where he worked. So one night he got very drunk and set fire to the hotel. Caldwell was indicted upon two counts of arson. The second count was laid under section 1 (1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971-arson destroying property belonging to another. The first and more serious count was laid under section 1 (2) of the 1971- arson endangering life. Caldwell pleaded guilty to the second count but pleaded not-guilty to the first on the ground that he had been so drunk at the time the fire was set that the thought there might be people in the hotel never crossed his mind. Caldwell was convicted after the trial judge had directed the jury that voluntary intoxication was not a defence to the first count and was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and the prosecution appealed to the House of Lords. Lord Diplock took the opportunity of defining recklessness as follows:“In my opinion, a person charged with an offence under section 1(1) was 'reckless as to whether ... property would be destroyed or damaged' if (i) he does an act which in fact creates an obvious risk that property will be

The flat was empty at the time and the flats were constructed in such a way as to prevent the spread of fire to neighbouring flats. He was convicted of aggravated criminal damage under s.1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 and appealed contending that no life was in fact endangered. His conviction was upheld. There was no requirement that life should in fact be endangered under s.1(2). The test to be applied was whether an ordinary prudent bystander would, at the time when the fire was started, have perceived an obvious risk that property would be damaged and that life would thereby be endangered. The fact that there may have been special features which prevented the risk from materialising was