R v Stephenson [1979] QB 695

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: D, a schizophrenic, sought warmth by lighting a fire inside a haystack. The fire quickly got out of control, causing extensive damage. D was charged with criminal damage. The question before the court was whether D had been reckless in lighting the fire, given his mental condition and inability to foresee the risk.

Held: The Court of Appeal quashed D’s conviction. The court applied a subjective test for recklessness, holding that D could not be found reckless because his schizophrenia prevented him from appreciating the risk of starting the fire. Recklessness, they ruled, must be determined by what the defendant actually foresaw rather than by what a reasonable person would have foreseen.

💡Levelup: This case is significant for its application of the subjective test for recklessness, as established in R v Cunningham, and highlighted the importance of considering the defendant’s mental state in assessing recklessness.