Oundations of Criminal Law-resit journal article analysis

N.P. Metcalfe and A.J. Ashworth, in their case commentary, Arson: mens rea recklessness whether property destroyed or damageda (2004) Crim L R 369, analyse and critically evaluate the decisions of the House of Lords in R v G [2003] UKHL 50; [2004] 1 A.C. 1034 and R. v Caldwell (James) [1982] A.C. 341.

Briefly identify the key arguments advanced in the case commentary and, giving reasons, discuss whether Metcalfe and Ashworthas critical evaluation of the two decisions is persuasively argued.

NB. You are only required to discuss the Commentary (which starts at page 370 with the words a?It is a great tribute toa¦a?) and NOT the preceding case summary.

The case commentary is accessible via Westlaw: go to the library website and search for a?Westlawa in the search box and follow the links to the Westlaw site. When in Westlaw click on Journals along top menu. Then enter a?arsona in subject/keyword box and Metcalfe and Ashworth in author box and enter.

Word Limit: 1000 words (excluding indented quotations of more than 50 words, bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.60 of the Academic Regulations.

Ps. I am an international student, though I do speak english very well but I have a few issues with grammar and I sometimes mix british and American vocabulary. So I am not sure whether i am a fluent or non native speaker but I do speak english very well just a few issues with grammar.

Referencing Requirements:
Criminal Law 7th ednCatherine Eliot and Frances Quinn
Criminal Law DirectionsNicola Haralambous
Criminal Law 8th ednCatherine Elliot & Frances Quinn