The defendants were children accused of arson being reckless as to the danger of damage. They were not entitled to require the jury to consider as a separate question whether the risk of damage was obvious other than to an ordinary adult.
Held: The question at issue was substantial, as to the mens rea and the evidence required to support the charge, and not procedural. Accordingly the defendants’ human rights to a fair trial were not engaged. The Caldwell case still applied. That case had been criticised, but still stood. The Convention rights should be construed broadly, but even so remained concerned with procedure, not the substantial fairness of the law.
Judges:
Lord Justice Dyson, Mr Justice Silber and Judge Beaumont, QC
Citations:
Times 01-Aug-2002
Statutes:
Criminal Damage Act 1971 1(1) 1(3), European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Commissioner of Police v Caldwell HL 19-Mar-1981
The defendant got drunk and set fire to the hotel where he worked. Guests were present. He was indicted upon two counts of arson. He pleaded guilty to the 1(1) count but contested the 1(2) charge, saying he was so drunk that the thought there might . .
Cited – Z And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2001
Four children complained that, for years before they were taken into care by the local authority, its social services department was well aware that they were living in filthy conditions and suffering ‘appalling’ neglect in the home of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Human Rights
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.174745