Comments on Cases
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837503900101 |
| Published date | 01 January 1975 |
| Date | 01 January 1975 |
| Subject Matter | Magistrates' Courts |
Magistrates' Courts
Comments
on
Cases
RECKLESSNESS IN
THE
CASE OF MALICIOUS
DAMAGE
R. v.
May
THE defendant appeared at Coleraine Petty Sessions on 10th May,
1974 before Mr. J. M. Shearer, Resident Magistrate, charged that
(1) he on
9th
March, 1974 at
The
Diamond, Coleraine, did
unlawfully and maliciously set fire to a shop, namely, the furniture
and hardware shop of Messrs. Crawford and Co. Ltd., with intent
thereby to injure or defraud, contrary to Section 3 of the Malicious
Damage Act 1861 and
(2) he on
8th
March, 1974 at New Row, Coleraine, did unlaw-
fully and maliciously set fire to a shop, namely, Christie's Paint and
Wallpaper Shop, with intent thereby to injure or defraud, contrary
to Section 3 of the Malicious Damage Act 1861.
The
Prosecutor
consented to the charges being dealt with summarily (see Section 5
of the Protection of the Person and Property Act (N.L) 1969 and
Section 34(b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act (N.L) 1964).
The
facts proved in each case were similar,
viz.:-
(1)
The
defendant forcefully entered the shop premises as a tres-
passer with intent to steal therein;
(2) When inside the premises, the defendant lit a paper torch to
assist him to see around and then tried to extinguish the torch
by dropping it on the floor and putting his foot on it;
(3) In neither case was he successful in effectively extinguishing
the torch with the result that in each case the shop premises .
were completely burned down in the consequential fire.
The
defendant contended that his failure to extinguish the torch
properly amounted only to
carelessness-not
to recklessness and that such
carelessness on his part rendered him not guilty of the offences with which
he was charged because his carelessness, however culpable, was not suf-
ficient to justify a conviction in a criminal prosecution of this nature.
The
Prosecutor contended that the lighting of the torch in the circumstances
was reckless because the possibility of it causing the premises to be set on
fire should be present to the mind of any reasonable man.
The
Resident Magistrate said that the question for the Court
was:-
"Did the defendant intend the consequences of his conduct. or if he did
not, was he reckless as to whether or not they would ensue from that
conduct?"
In the case of Crawford's premises (charge 1) the Resident Magistrate
found:-
(a)
That
the defendant did not intend to set the premises on fire;
1
To continue reading
Request your trial