What is the legal test for recklessness?

In Horrocks v. Lowe, [1974] 1 All E.R. 662, Lord Diplock, at p. 671, spoke about the type of recklessness which needs to be proven to show malice: “… If “reckless” here means that the maker of the statement has jumped to conclusions which are irrational, reached without adequate enquiry or based on insufficient evidence, this is not enough to constitute malice if he nevertheless does believe in the truth of the statement itself. The only kind of recklessness which destroys privilege is indifference to its truth or falsity.”

The plaintiff has a considerable burden in proving malice. In jury trials, it is a question of law for the judge to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to submit the issue of malice to the jury. Before doing so, the judge must be of the opinion that the evidence adduced raises a “probability” of its existence: Campbell v. Jones, cited above, at para. 34.