Reviewed case brief
R v. Cunningham
[1957] 2 QB 396
The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the word "maliciously" in a criminal statute requires proof that the accused either intended the consequence or was subjectively reckless — meaning he actually foresaw the risk of harm and proceeded regardless. Mere negligence or inadvertence, even if objective
- Court
- Court of Criminal Appeal (UK)
- Year
- 1957
- Subjects
- Jurisprudence, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Reviewed
- 2026-06-30
Rule established
'Maliciously' requires actual foresight of the risk (subjective recklessness); mere negligence or inadvertence is insufficient
Facts
Issues
Held
Ratio decidendi
How to use it in an exam
Editorial source
Queen's Bench Reports
Educational summary only. Read the reported judgment or an authorised law report before relying on the case professionally.