Member

That test, in essence, has two limbs: the first is that the prosecution has to establish that the defendant foresaw the relevant risk, not merely that a reasonable person would have foreseen it; the second is that the assessment of whether taking that risk was unreasonable is made by reference to all the circumstances known to the defendant. That is the twin test the amendment suggests should be added here. Do the Government agree that that is the appropriate test of recklessness, or do they propose to adopt the common law position, which may change from time to time? I am interested in the reasons for the Government’s decision. For those reasons, I beg to move.