Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Regina v. Cunningham (1957) is an English Court of Appeal ruling that clarified that indirect, not reasonably foreseeable consequences to a totally distinct, reprehensible, even "wicked" activity would not be considered "malicious" where that is set out as the mens rea for a particular offence. [2]
The modern definition of recklessness has developed from R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 in which the definition of 'maliciously' for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 was held to require a subjective rather than objective test when a man released gas from the mains while attempting to steal money from the pay-meter. As a ...
Cunningham (1957) 2 AER 412 was the pivotal case in establishing both that the test for "maliciously" was subjective rather than objective, and that malice was inevitably linked to recklessness. In that case, a man released gas from the mains into adjoining houses while attempting to steal money from the pay-meter:
AP . Under this fallen tree the decomposed body of a young girl was found, near Woodbine, Ill., April 26, 1958. The body is thought to be that of Maria Ridulph, 7, who disappeared Dec. 3, 1957 ...
354 U.S. 298 (1957) free speech, distinction between expression of opinion and advocacy of action Morey v. Doud: 354 U.S. 457 (1957) States do not have power to make special exemptions in legislation for particular actors (overruled by City of New Orleans v. Dukes) Roth v. United States: Free Speech: 354 U.S. 476 (1957) obscenity Conley v. Gibson
Pages in category "1957 in case law" The following 12 pages are in this category, out of 12 total. ... R v Cunningham; S. Schmidt v Dwyer; Spies v Smith; V. Victoria ...
Maria Elizabeth Ridulph (March 12, 1950 – c. December 1957) was a seven-year-old girl who disappeared from Sycamore, Illinois, on December 3, 1957.Her remains were found almost five months later in a wooded area near Woodbine, Illinois, approximately 90 miles (140 km) from her home.
There is also subjective recklessness, such as in the case of R v Cunningham (1957), [4] where the defendant is not required to intend the consequence to come from his actions, but the defendant realized the risk that this consequence would occur and took the risk anyway. Such a state of mind is required in most non–fatal offenses, such as