In Regina v Cunningham, the defendant (Cunningham) was indicted pursuant to England’s Offenses Against the Person Act of 1861. At issue is the definition of malice as it applies to the Offenses Against the Person Act, as well as if general “wickedness” satisfies the mens rea for the crime.
Jurisdiction and Citation
Court of Criminal Appeal
2 Q.B. 396 (1957)
Regina v Cunningham – Case Brief
Roy Cunningham, in an attempt to steal money, tore out the gas meter from the residence of his elderly mother-in-law, Sarah Wade. Cunningham entered the home through the opening and stole money he found inside. But because he failed to turn off the gas, the removed gas main caused a leak in Wade’s home. Wade was partially asphyxiated from the gas. Cunningham was charged with larceny as well as a violation of the Offenses against the Person Act.
The Offenses Against the Person Act is broad and applies to all crimes against the person, including assault and murder. Cunningham pleaded guilty to larceny but sought a trial on the other charge. Under the Act, Cunningham was charged with “unlawfully and maliciously” causing another to take poison in a way that harms them.
The trial court informed the jury that malice was simply any “wicked” act that Cunningham should have known better than to commit. The jury convicted Cunningham and he appealed.
Rule of Law
The vague notion of wickedness does not satisfy the mens rea for malice. Malice is either an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was done or the reckless disregard of a foreseeable risk that the harm would occur.
Legal Issues
Does “wickedness” satisfy the mens rea requirement for malice?
Decision
No. Under a criminal statute, the term malice means either an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was done or the reckless disregard of a foreseeable risk that the harm would occur. In other words, malice relates to committing an act despite the knowledge it result in the harm of another. In this case, the “wickedness” described by the judge to the jury merely related to deplorable behavior. That in and of itself does not rise to the level of malice.
The judge in Regina v. Cunningham erred by defining malice as “wickedness.” While there is no doubt Cunningham acted badly, it was the State’s burden to prove he did so aware he could harm someone. Because of the faulty instruction to the jury, the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled it was impossible to determine if jury would have convicted if properly instructed. Because of this, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed Cunningham’s conviction.
Concurrence
None.
Dissent
None.
Related Terms
- Mens Rea – The state of mind that the prosecution, to secure a conviction, must prove that a defendant had when committing a crime.
- Recklessness – A conscious disregard of a serious and unjustifiable risk.
- Malice – The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification with the intent to cause harm to another.
