Booth v Crown Prosecution Service

Booth v Crown Prosecution Service

The magistrates applied the correct subjective test for recklessness as required by R v G. They found as a fact that the appellant was aware of the risk of damage to property when running into the road and deliberately closed his mind to that risk. The findings were open to them on the evidence, and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Mark Booth; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Criminal Damage, Recklessness, Appeal by Case Stated
Criminal Law Criminal Damage Recklessness Appeal by Case Stated

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Booth

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrates applied the correct legal test for recklessness under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 as clarified in R v G [2004] 1 AC 1034
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was subjectively aware of the risk of damage to property

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrates applied the correct subjective test for recklessness as required by R v G. They found as a fact that the appellant was aware of the risk of damage to property when running into the road and deliberately closed his mind to that risk. The findings were open to them on the evidence, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed