... seeped out into the house next door. Cunningham's prospective mother-in-law was sleeping there, and became so ill that her life was endangered; consequently, Cunningham was charged under s. 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 with 'maliciously administering a noxious thing as to endanger life'. Cunningham was convicted but made a successful appeal; his conviction was quashed because of misdirection at the trial. The Court of Appeal said that 'maliciously' meant intentionally or recklessly. They defined recklessness as foreseeing that the kind of harm that in fact occurred might occur, and going ahead anyway. This is called a subjective test: the defendant must actually have had the required foresight. Cunningham would therefore been reckless if he realised there was a risk of the gas escaping and endangering someone, and went ahead anyway. This ruling was therefore held to apply to all cases that had the word 'malicious' in the ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now