... that her life was in grave danger. As a result, Cunningham was charged under s.23 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 with "maliciously administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life." Cunningham was convicted of this charge, and in the appeal hearing, the Court of Appeal stated that 'maliciously' in fact meant intentionally or recklessly. The judges defined recklessness as anticipating that the kind of harm that did in fact occur could occur, and going ahead nonetheless. This is known as a 'subjective test': the accused must actually have held the necessary foresight. Therefore, Cunningham would have been reckless were he to have realised that there was a possibility of the gas seeping out, and jeopardizing someone's health, and went ahead anyway. In the appeal, Cunningham was in fact cleared of any wrongdoing, and his conviction was quashed: because of misdirection by the judge in the original ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now