Member

Although it is tempting, now is probably not the time to embark on a soliloquy on the law of recklessness. I see some lawyers are disappointed already—they were hoping for the words “Cunningham” and “Caldwell” to be mentioned. Caldwell is in my notes, but I threw in Cunningham for their edification and delight. I have sought to place on the face of the Bill a definition of recklessness as set out in R v G—a 2003 case from this House in its former appellate capacity. The objective test of whether a reasonable person ought to be aware of a risk was established—again by this House in its appellant capacity—in the earlier case of Caldwell in 1982. That was ultimately overturned—to the consternation of some and the delight of many law students—by this House in 2003 in R v G, which introduced a more subjective test.