This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:03

Judgement for the case R v Cunningham

KEY POINTS

  • "Maliciousness" suggests an awareness of the potential outcome, which was absent in this case, leading to the overturning of his conviction.

  • Nevertheless, the courts presume that the individual must have been cognizant of the risk involved (given his knowledge of the phone's composition, like bakelite), based on the circumstances.

FACTS

  • The defendant took out a gas metre with the intention of stealing money from it, constituting a separate charge and conviction. As a result, gas began to leak and caused partial asphyxiation of a neighbour.

  • The charge against the defendant was based on section 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which prohibited the unlawful and malicious administration of a harmful substance to someone else.

COMMENTARY

  • The court's approach employs an objective standard by presuming the defendant's awareness based on circumstantial evidence. This raises a pertinent question about whether the court adequately considered the defendant's personal awareness of the risks involved, as opposed to relying solely on an objective viewpoint. The case underscores the intricate interplay between subjective and objective elements in assessing criminal intent.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

  • A man wrenched the gas meter off a house to get the money inside. This caused gas to enter the next-door house and endanger the life of a woman living there.

  • The charge involved there being a “malicious” action, which the judge directed that there was. The jury convicted him.

  • His appeal was allowed on the grounds that “maliciousness” implies a foresight of the result and that, this being lacking, his conviction was quashed.

  • However the courts merely assume that the man must have known the risk he was taking (because he knew the phone was made from bakelite, etc.) because of the circumstances.

  • This is effectively an objective test therefore because the judges are failing to consider whether the man himself was aware of the risks he was taking, and do not prove that he was. 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on R v Cunningham

GDL Criminal Law Notes
551 total pages
76 purchased

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

GDL Criminal LawMens Rea Notes (9 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...